Talk:Bret Weinstein/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article development

I'm willing to help explore the possibility of developing Bret Weinstein into a freestanding article. If/when I get around to starting a draft I'll link it here (if someone else has one, please link here as well). In the meantime feel free to share links here that may be of use, make suggestions, etc.
Thanks for your time and attention, --A Fellow Editor (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps as an intermediate step to developing Bret Weinstein into a freestanding article we might first spinoff The Evergreen State College § 2017 protests into a freestanding article with a Bret Weinstein subsection. There seems to be quite a great deal published about the protests, surrounding circumstances, and aftermath and much published about Weinstein intertwines with it. ––A Fellow Editor– 19:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed a prior instance of Bret Weinstein as a short article. The material therein seems of use to either an attempt at a new expanded version or to a Weinstein section of a freestanding article more broadly addressing the 2017 kerfuffles at Evergreen. ––A Fellow Editor– 14:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Evergreen Scandal section is disproportionate

This section is getting out of hand in terms of length--I get that everybody and their goldfish has something to say about this (since it's politically-charged), but there is already a thorough summary of this event on the college's own page. The events comprise about 6 months of Weinstein's life, and only one part of his notable history. I propose that the section should be cut down and include a link to Evergreen College's page. I'm especially annoyed at the pile of political commentary that keeps getting added here.

For the purposes of this article, the section need only describe the basic facts of Weinstein's involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukacris (talk • contribs) 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What actually happened?

I came to this article searching for information about the controversy(if there is one?) around Bret Weinstein as his name was mentioned in a talk about the increasing divisiveness in politics. It was claimed that he got 'harassed by the radical left while being left-leaning himself', so I came here to get an overview whether this was true or not and for what reason he got attacked. All this article talks about is an event and then suddenly a settlement. Since I came here without background information, I didn't learn much and will have to start over at google now. Anyway, this article needs improvement. Sorry for my mediocre English, but thanks for contributing to the Wikipedia project 95.222.177.164 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that last paragraph of the "Day of Absence" section makes no sense. It's horribly written and is borderline incoherent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that, although videos exist that plainly show what happened, any summary would be an interpretation. We'd need a reliable source; opinion pieces and partisan media wouldn't be considered adequate sources except for being sources of the opinions within them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the coverage falls into these categories and that which doesn't is rather poor. For example, a random Googling led me to https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/evergreen-copes-with-fallout-months-after-day-of-absence-sparked-national-debate which at first omits the reason Weinstein objected to begin with, then offers a soft-pedaled version of it. Unlike other coverage I've seen, it indicates that special events for interested white students were held off campus, not that white students were asked (and pressured) to leave campus that day (something even the Wikipedia page and most other news coverage states). It shows him being mobbed, but doesn't say he was mobbed. An interview indicates that the crowd was made of minority students tired of racism, while the video shows that most of the students involved appeared to be white. That means that anyone who didn't want that information on this page could, consistent with Wikipedia policy, remove it for lack of a reliable source. Omitting such information results in a somewhat confusing narrative, but including it would require finding rock-solid sources and actively defending them. Without that, we get what we have here. I'll add a date to the resignation, though, since "later" is way too vague. Calbaer (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Public intellectual

Hey everybody. I don't think that we can call Weinstein a public intellectual (outside of biology, which is already documented), especially without citations to publications and speeches of notability. This seems like opinion and marketing, but this is an encyclopedia. 2604:2000:14C5:82E5:51DD:510:E078:7831 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@2604:2000:14C5:82E5:51DD:510:E078:7831: I moved your comment down here for better discussion. I put in "public intellectual". I don't see that used on a lot of other pages, so you might have a point. It probably comes down to what you feel it means. There is no doubt that he is an intellectual. He's a professor and a prominent member of the "IDW" and there's plenty of sources to back that up. And he's definitely public. But I'm open to coming up with other terms. I think I see it as a more neutral term than you do. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Just the facts

@Ashmoo: Your desire to stick to the facts is laudable. However, this page needs to read in a way that makes it clear someone who looks up BW, who he is. Why is he important? Personally I think the page should read more like, "BW is a controversial person, seen by some as a victim of cancel culture and a champion of free speech and seen by others as (I'm actully not sure what) "not that"? Maybe there are some good critics of BW out there we could find. But, right now the article is too fussy in terms of "facts" and is a pretty lame read. I really doubt this page can be edited to the point where it would be an AfD, so let's work together to make it better. DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi DolyaIskrina. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. My only concern at the moment, is that the article seems to be a hodge podge of different editors throwing in sentences. This makes the article have little structure and means that the same things are said over and over. (This is the parts we disagreed on, I think). So far, my edits have just been to add structure, remove repetition and clean up the language, so that we can see what the article currently actually says. After this, we can work on the notability and pro and con views of him. My "just the facts" comment was more just to avoid multiple repetitions of 'he got mainstream media attention for', rather than any specific view of the actual facts of the article. Am I being clear here? I'll continue to make smaller edits for structure and language and hopefully we can get the article up to the quality that you mentioned. I think I share your goal for this page. Ashmoo (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ashmoo: Sounds good. I think we are in agreement too. I've been looking for a well rated page we could emulate that handles a similar type of controversy. I haven't found one yet. This BW page seems to suffer from a "who started it?" debate. The Evergreen page gives a very historical POV of the controversy. I think this page can be allowed to center BW, since it's a page about him. As long as we then give a counter narrative I feel like we can achieve NPOV.DolyaIskrina (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Excellent. If you don't mind, I'll propose previous changes, one by one, so we can reach consensus. After I put a fact tag on 'Weinstein became a public proponent of free speech and a critic of transgender identity, intersectionality, and what he sees as the excesses of the far left.' you reverted it, citing WP:SKYBLUE. Could you clarify why you think this doesn't need a source? These clear positions seem to be prime material for citation in my mind. Ashmoo (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

About the SKYBLUE, I might have been wrong about the claim that he's a critic of transgender identity. Other than that, though, I think pretty much all of his public statements support him criticizing everything listed there. So it'd be hard to pick any one of his many talks and essays to support that, like saying you need evidence that Alan Watts talked about Zen. BW is definitely attacked for being transphobic, but I doubt you could find any evidence that he's actually said anything explicitly opposed to transgender people a) being transgender and b) having equal rights. But he might be a critic of the specific notion of "transgender identity. He's definitely opposed to identity politics. I'm making a half hearted attempt to find him being critical of transgender identity. If I find anything I'll let you know. Until then, I'd propose changing "transgender identity" to "identity politics." If necessary we can add a section where his critics can call him transphobic, and the reader can decide how valid that charge is. DolyaIskrina (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a little trouble figuring out what you are saying here. The core principle of wikipedia is that every statement (except for the sky is blue type statements) needs to be verified with a reliable source, especially biographies of living people. If there are a large number of sources for a statement, we should just choose one and use it. In your above statement, it seems like you are unsure of the veracity of the statements we are discussing. In this case, I think it is best to remove the statements and re-include them with a statement that can be verified by a good source. Ashmoo (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

I don't see the notability of his personal life, especially since all of that info is in the wikidata section. Is this truly notable? If so, does it merit repetition beyond the Wikidata box? No signature, editing anonymously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:14C5:82E5:90E9:C492:D9C6:1D1B (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

If a person is notable, their personal life is also notable. It's standard WP:BLOP. If you would like to nominate this article for deletion, please do that. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast

Weinstein's YouTube podcast might be worth mentioning/linking. https://www.youtube.com/c/BretWeinsteinTheEvolutionist

--2600:1700:B670:7230:0:0:0:5D7 (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I gave this a shot. I'm still very much learning. If you have any feedback, I'm all ears. Thanks! Changeset

Seandevelops (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Generally, information like this should be supported by reliable and independent sources. Hotair.com is not a reliable source, and Weinstein is neither reliable, not independent of Weinstein. Grayfell (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. I like what you did with it. Thanks, Grayfell!

Seandevelops (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Telemeres and Greider

There have been several attempts to put BW's academic work on telemeres and his claims about Greider in the lead. These things might belong on the page, but 1) not in the lead, since thus far, he is not known for these things, and 2) the sources used do not support the claims of failure to credit or plagiarism (or whatever the charge against Greider is) as an established fact. We are allowed to indicate that BW himself, or his brother EW, makes these claims, but we have to make it clear that they are the sources of the claim. And we have to do all of this within the policy of concerning biography of living people. WP:BLP. Yes, I know, the claim is that he SHOULD be known for these things, but we at Wikipedia are not in the business of "should", we are in the business of what is citable by reputable secondary sources. And we have to be very careful when it comes to charges of plagiarism and intellectual theft. DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Unity2020

I can see an argument that the Unity2020 movement was not significant enough for its own article, but the search redirects it to the Bret Weinstein page, and there is zero mention of it. A single sentence that it existed on this page seems appropriate, since he was its spearhead, and he did begin organizing with prominent, significant political figures like Dan Crenshaw, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jesse Ventura before it ended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:4800:8EE0:F81B:AAC9:5F83:7536 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jewish

Eric—in your revert you say "rm 'Weinstein is Jewish', as it has no bearing on anything else stated in that paragraph or in the rest of the article". What is preventing you from adding more material to "that paragraph or ... the rest of the article"? I certainly have no objection to additional material pertaining to this dimension of the subject of the biography. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would I pad the article with possibly irrelevant material about his cultural/religious heritage? I have no idea of what bearing that has on him as a public figure. I do not know what role Weinstein's heritage plays in his notability -- and I don't know a ton about the guy -- but I have yet to learn anything about him that relies on his being Jewish. I'm guessing if he were Unitarian, there would not be a standalone sentence stating Weinstein is Unitarian and is married to... Eric ^talk 00:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Remove your lie about the Weinstein's "spreading misinformation about Covid-19." They are scientists, engaging in the scientific method of questioning a hypothesis that has been pushed at the public like an unquestionable commandment. This kind of dishonesty cheapens the value of Wikipedia. 38.123.127.144 (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done WP:V applies. Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

change "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6]"

to

"Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have provided different points of view about the COVID-19 pandemic."

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and fact checkers unequivocal statements one way or other are same of anyone else Nunoelder (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:GEVAL Wikipedia needs to make clear when misinformation is misinformation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Lock in more neutral state

I get the reasons to lock this for a bit, it's going viral on Twitter,. But locking it in a state with potentially libelous statements in the name of preventing vandalism seems like a very politically driven move. Remove these controversial statements impugning his character and then have all the conversation and process. I'm confident the truth will prevail. Mckennagene (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:WRONGVERSION. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If those statements reflect the views of reliable sources and cite them, libel claims are a non-issue. If those sources eventually retract their material, so will WP, or at least, it will have to rely on other sources if they exist. —PaleoNeonate – 08:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (3)

change "have spread misinformation" to "are unafraid to transparently explore controversial information in a thoughtful manner" 98.34.39.16 (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Yeah. Right. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability change as of now

@A Fellow Editor:

[AfD decision from Sep 2017] was MERGE arguing that Bret is only notable for one event.

I am getting the suspicion that he is more notable as of now: Mention in NYT Intellectual Dark Web article. 117,000 Twitter followers. personal website looks richer than anonymous (i.e. panel invitations, 882 Patreon supporters, and a variety of wide reaching podcasts etc.

References

More info is good and called for

The article is scant and has glaring gaps. What are his degrees in? What are the titles of his theses? What have his students worked on? Who have been some of his most notable students? If he is Jewish, let's mention it, as it is part of who he is. What are his hobbies and what does he like to do in his free time? There seems to be a big political undercurrent, so where does he stand politically, does he belong to a political party, and does he promote some new political/governance solution? Bio-CLC (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Alexbrn: Your peremptory edit summary for your revert of my edit, Sourcing unreliable and not mentioning Weinstein at all, falls short of explaining your revert. Could you enlighten the community on why you find the American Journal of Therapeutics to be unreliable? You may also want to contact the journal publishers themselves to alert them to your concerns regarding their validity; You'll find their contact info at the bottom of this page. Regarding the article not making any mention of Weinstein: I cited that journal article to balance out "our" categorical assertion—not attributed to anyone—that there is no good evidence for the effectiveness of ivermectin in treating "COVID-19". Eric ^talk 01:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The source has already been discussed at Talk:Ivermectin. When we have multiple super-strength sources (EMA, WHO, etc.) saying there is no good evidence for ivermectin wrt COVID, we don't use a minor outlier journal in contradiction. WP:REDFLAG. Read the Gorski article for an explanation of additional reasons why this paper is iffy. Alexbrn (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I did read it. And I've watched interviews with multiple practicing physicians and research doctors in three languages who present the opposite view. Interesting that you believe the WHO to be a super-strength source. Since they abandoned their fall 2019 pandemic preparedness plan (decades in the making) in early 2020, their "guidance" has been like a weathervane in a hurricane. ..."we" don't use a minor outlier journal... might be interpreted as a Defense of the Faith. My edit was to help avoid having WP look like it's joining the likes of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter in censorship. Eric ^talk 12:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CGTW#12 probably applies. And you have confirmed you are WP:NOTHERE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Amusing assertion, especially if one compares our editing histories. I'll let you get back to your purely collaborative efforts now. Eric ^talk 15:43, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NPOV and BLP Reminder

The COVID-19 origins section fails WP:POVSOURCING. Chosing sources to agree with a POV [2] while ignoring sources that do not [3] is classic WP:POVsourcing. This is also a violation of WP:BLP. CutePeach (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVSOURCING (just an essay, but a really intelligent one) says that sources should not be chosen in support of a POV. If however, an excellent source like Science-Based Medicine discusses Weinstein, then it's useful for us, no matter what it says. Since there's no doubt SBM is among the WP:BESTSOURCES for fringe science, its use is the opposite of POV sourcing: rather, the POV cart is being drawn behind the SOURCE horse, as it should be! Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

So in all the Googling you did on our subject, you never found the New York Times piece? Are you going to read it after reading that Sceptic piece you just happened upon? CutePeach (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I tend not to use Google for sourcing. Nor do I much read American newspapers. Alexbrn (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: SBM is American. Do you and Hemiauchenia have any other American sources you would like to add to help build this WP:BLP in accordance with our WP:NPOV policy? Again, we very much want to avoid WP:POVSOURCING, an intelligent essay based on the phenomena known as source bias. CutePeach (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

See #New sources. Plenty there, particularly on Weinstein and his wife's antics wrt COVID. Alexbrn (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Bret Stephens is a right wing newpaper columnist known for his fringe views about jewish intelligence and climate change. Weinsteins views on COVID-19 are clearly due for inclusion in some form given the coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

How much coverage is there? If the only coverage is a couple of sentences in SBM then this is probably undue. If there is substantially more then coverage is probably warranted. - Bilby (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It's more than "a couple of sentences", Weinstein is mentioned throughout the piece and is central to its thesis. It ends thusly:

I agree that ivermectin shouldn’t be used to treat COVID-19 outside of the context of a well-designed clinical trial with a strong scientific rationale. / Certainly, the conspiracy mongering by Bret Weinstein, Pierre Kory, and their fans are not leading me to reconsider that opinion.

Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, it is more like three sentences. Seriously, almost everything Gorksi writes about Weinstein is currently being quioted in tthe article. Almost every other time his name comes up it is in a quote by someone other than Gorski when discussing that someone else. Is there further coverage? I don't think we can justify an entire subsection on a single source. - Bilby (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe the section is warranted. The other obvious source is Weinstein himself. Per WP:ABOUTSELF: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". He mentions these views in every one of his podcast episodes. If he's not shy about these opinions we need not demure. He clearly thinks his lab leak opinion is one of his crowning achievements, and he self administered Ivermectin live on his podcast. Once we take him at his word and give these notable opinions a section, then WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE come into play. DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are discussing self published sources when we aren't using any. - Bilby (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying we should use his podcast as a source. Though it's so obvious I don't think we necessarily need to track down time codes. DolyaIskrina (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

That'd likely run into WP:BLPSPS / WP:UNDUE problems, except for the most bland claims. Alexbrn (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current state of the section. So I'll save this debate for a time when it would make a difference in the article. DolyaIskrina (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

bad sources + NPOV

"Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6]"

Neither source mentions his wife directly, and both sources are regarding a single recent viral occasion so more/different sources for this claim is needed if it stays. Furthermore this is a recent viral news story that is all less than 3 weeks old and the original content itself has been removed from where it was originally uploaded so you cannot even see it if you wanted to. A statement like this is too ideologically biased for an encyclopedia imo.

The same sentence and sources exist on the Heather entry as well. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed The lede must summarize the body, where the material on Heying was properly sourced. Although not strictly necessary, I have duplicated the cited source in the lede too. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response and edits, however the issue remains or I misunderstand the standards. Additionally according to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources there is no consensus on Vice being a strong or reliable source and thus it should not be used as one when dealing with a volatile, and viral subject where new information is coming out every day, no? Interestingly the vice article is attempting to paint an association between the current ivermectin proponents and quackery in spite of acknowledging that the larger clinical trials and studies it is implying will factually prove the presupposition (weinsten and anyone associated is a fringe quack), and disprove weinstein and associates questioning of ivermectin efficacy, have not been completed or released yet. It then acknowledges the more reasonable (in my opinion) counter-argument by saying "Some of the loudest voices now promoting ivermectin—or, more neutrally, asking why they aren't allowed to ask questions about it...". Based on Weinstein's more recent appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast, I believe a more accurate summary of his behavior is that he has been extremely careful not to directly recommend ivermectin as a cure all, and is much more in line with the neutral information seeking and questioning as defined by the Vice article quoted above. In addition to that, the CDC website officially says: "Recommendation:There are insufficient data for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19." Independently looking at it from my own perspective, Vice appears to definitely lean left center if not a little farther (I lean left myself, just pointing out the obvious bias here). Additionally as evidence for my claim that this is a hot-button issue, the same author of the source article just released another article today dealing with the same(evolving) subject. So, to summarize if your claim is "Bret and Heather spread misinformation on multiple occasions", and your source for the latter part of the claim is a simply mentioning she is bret's spouse and has participated in his podcast but the podcast in question regarding spike protein does not feature her and the podcast they are talking about simply has her taking ivermectin which is FDA approved, how is that evidence they both spread misinformation on multiple occasions? Guilt by association is not a good encyclopedic standard nor is assuming and attributing more intent than the evidence allows you to. Additionally, the "multiple occasions" claim is still in question for weinstein himself and not even this third additional source were it reliably non-bias only deals with the recent viral podcast and very vaguely on the more recent JRE appearance. If there were evidence of multiple instances of misinformation spreading there should be multiple sources for each covering each claim independently over time, not reaching a conclusion based only on recent viral evidence that covers a single specific instance and uses bias sources. I don't really care for either sides position on the ivermectin debate but confidently saying one side is spreading misinformation while the established medical authority simply calls for patience as reliable data is gathered is not evidence of a claim of misinformation and smacks of favoring one perspective over the other. Hopefully that all makes sense. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Vice is not a super-strength source, that is true. But here it's reporting plain facts that are easily verified, so it's fine. Ivermectin promotion is misinformation per multiple top-level medical sources, and Wikipedia needs to be clear about that to be neutral. So, overall, we're good. Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Is this argument not a logical fallacy? The alt-right and its media sources occasionally cite correct and easily verifiable information also, but in spite of that they should not be used as sources for their obvious bias, similar to what this Vice article is exhibiting only for the left because when your presupposition is bias it affects the quality of the reporting in favor of that presupposition. The CDC, NIH, and WHO are the organizations certified to make medical recommendations to the general public regarding medical treatments and information not individual professionals in unrelated fields (weinstein), wikipedia editors (you or I), individual medical doctors, out of context medical studies and least of all Anna Merlan of VICE Motherload. I have checked the official organization web pages indicated and they all say the same thing: More data/clinical trials are needed. Therefore if there are verifiable top level medical sources that are willing to certify as fact what appears to be an unproven assumption because of lack of evidence (for now), then please use those sources instead but I imagine you wont be able to find any because the truth is the same: More data is needed to make a factual conclusion. Finally, you seem to have ignored my earlier observation highlighted by this Vice article: "Some of the loudest voices now promoting ivermectin—or, more neutrally, asking why they aren't allowed to ask questions about it..." which is a more more apt description for what is going on in terms of weinstein in my opinion and yet we are going with a different and in my opinion heavily biased narrative....because why exactly? There is a feedback loop of non-experts saying the medical consensus exists in favor of not using Ivermectin when the actual experts in charge of public health are saying there is a lack of evidence to make a conclusion like that. Why should obviously bias media be used as sources for a clearly developing medical issues and treatments? Using medical sources to prove medical assertions, or removing the offending statements seems to be the only way to be neutral. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

There is a lack of evidence so its use cannot be recommended - correct. In medicine the assumption is that something does not work unless and until sufficient evidence disproves that assumption. This is more or less what all the WPBESTSOURCES: say. Weinstein, in contrast, took the stuff on air and pronounced himself COVID-proof. General Ivermectin misinformation is covered at COVID-19 misinformation#Ivermectin. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your level head. The issue I still see is we aren't here to cover public health recommendations or opinions from non-experts regarding medicine or treatments on a case by case basis based on recent and far from concluded events, nor is weinstein or recent guests (or JRE) regarded as being notable for quackery. This statement also relies on something that was not overtly stated by weinstein or cohorts: "Please ignore your doctor or medical authority and take Ivermectin" which is why I keep referencing the line in that VICE article about questioning why questioning Ivermectin is a better description for what occurred (however inflammatory). If you want to mention how whackadoodle it was for him to take Ivermectin on air and declare himself Covid proof, source it and write it that way and you could even use the official WHO website that says Ivermectin is strictly only recommended as part of a clinical trial. But once you start attributing intent without direct evidence you are no longer writing an encyclopedia, you are defending an ideology you have an interest in whether that be defending against quackery or perceived quackery, censorship conspiracies, or a genuine belief that Ivermectin is a miracle drug. That is all irrelevant to the facts of the situation currently. In addition and more important, context matters, which is why the Fauci entry correctly cites that the email fiasco was not really a fiasco as the alt-right claimed, and that while the CDC initially sent out incorrect information regarding masks it was for very valid reasons (and interestingly for the same reasons I am citing here: Not enough evidence). This is an individual's encyclopedic entry regarding the facts of their life, credentials, academic contributions etc and not a blog or newspaper covering recent events from an ideological base. The fact that there is a statement like it currently means there is a ideological interest at play. The only thing notable about the recent Ivermectin charlie foxtrot is that it is still unfolding, and the authoritative public health experts say more evidence is required. Saying anything else is not NPOV. --24.23.4.56 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Weinstein's antivaxx and ivermectin misinformation is being picked up by secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are built on what secondary sources say about topics. Hence the content that is here. Anybody pushing a drug as effective when it is unproven is into the realm of quackery, so it's unlikely the commentary about him is going to be kind. Wikipedia cannot change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Alexbrn: Get a grip. He's not an antivaxxer so stop misrepresenting him with an untrue label. Misinformation is not defined and you do not get to define it. Secondary sources are starting to see him such as Rogan. Things change as much as you want some narrative to not change. Many lines of evidence point to it effectiveness, if you can see past the narrative. You are calling many countries and many doctors quacks and their stories should be heard. But you can advocate for their silence. You can say, ignore him like some failing tyrant would. Be my guest. Nanabozho (talk) 01:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned at 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC), I too want to speculate on Weinstein's motivation and have seen many of his DarkHorse podcasts. It is to help people with a safe drug, to exterminate this virus. To help children which you editors are going to have to decide some time if you should help those under 18 to get the vaccines by supporting a narrative that tries to get them vaccinated. Since you have decided to influence people on such subjects, go ahead. You will be judged by your future selves. Nanabozho (talk) 01:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is circular reasoning and requires a particular read on wikipedia policy and consensus to maintain validity. WP:BOLP and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Specifically: "Be very firm about using only high quality sources", "must be written conservatively" and "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.". VICE does not pass that test, nor does the misinformation on multiple occasions claim and since you appear to be the one defending this particular statement I believe that makes the burden of proof using high quality sources only your barrier to adding it to this entry. Not to mention, what of the secondary sources that disagree with the VICE source, or encourage weinstein's behavior for one reason or another is their perceived reality to be rejected inherently and if so based on what? The wikipedia reliable sources list is not that comprehensive and you can keep consensus in limbo for eternity reviewing every one with a bias that has a narrative interest at heart reporting information they feel is correct (Exactly like this VICE source). Speculating on weintein's motivation without direct evidence of that motivation should not be included in an encyclopedia entry regardless of source because it is speculation and assuming intent. You are saying that the information must be covered (yet have not explained why) and it cant be helped what secondary sources report (but only certain ones like VICE) when the core validity of the information is in question by health authorities who have not weighed in for or against (or have conditionally based on clinical trials) because of a lack of evidence. The neutral stance is not to include the information, not to play mind games with NPOV and current events to craft a narrative you feel satisfies scientific consensus. I say again, we should be covering established fact about the mans life, not currently hot topics with sources that have a vested interest in encouraging or discrediting the information that as of this moment is being hotly debated both on Wikipedia talk pages and by medical authorities within global health organizations or individual silos all over the internet.--24.23.4.56 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Vice source is but one, and used just for a mundane fact that can be easily verified. Weinstein's stuff on ivermectin/conspiracy theories has been covered in multiple sources now. In fact it's arguable it is chiefly what makes him notable now. You seem to be wanting to whitewash things. But Wikipedia cannot change reality. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Not covering a currently developing and viral event using questionably bias sources on someones biographical page is not whitewashing and is in fact more in line with wikipedia guidelines than what is in the entry now nor have you made a good argument (imo) as to why what you are saying supersedes those guidelines and thus ends up in the entry with clear dissent otherwise. Furthermore I have directly stated my motivations (neutrality) and it is a violation of wikipedia:AGF to ignore my words and attribute my behavior to something else that you decide (not unlike what is happening with this entry or the VICE article). How do we proceed when no other users are weighing in and you and I are at an impasse? 24.23.4.56 (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait to see if somebody else comments? Or post at WP:FTN#Bret Weinstein for wider input. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I have created a noticeboard request here for NPOV as I did not think fringe theory applied to a living biography entry. 24.23.4.56 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The best part is that VICE's own source from the article they cite literally says that it is effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrazzleDazzler (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the way you are going about attempting to get changes made (and you are only solidifying any pre-existing bias if there is any) and I do not wish to be associated with you or the twitter brigading going on now. If you would like to voice in support or against of specific piece of information or policy please follow the rules, and do so in your own section. Thank you. 24.23.4.56 (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've opened a RSN thread on the Vice article, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vice on Bret Weinstein. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. This is 24.23.4.56, I just registered.FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia BLP Quality Control

The lead edit "have spread misinformation... on numerous occasions" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Weinstein&oldid=1030798191) is an example of a Wikipedia BLP Quality Control failure which needs to be resolved via a procedural upgrade. There are much worse encyclopedic violations of this nature on the site (including direct ad hominem), all of which classify as defamation. In this context, it would be appropriate to discuss the purported spreading of misinformation in the article body, and perhaps reference this controversy in the lead, but not to frame the individual by this claim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Quality_control#Wikipedia%20BLP%20Quality%20Control

Civilisation (including science) operates by proposing and arguing about hypotheses, not some form of zero tolerance consensus algorithm. While I/others might disagree regarding the application of logic/rigour in every proposition made by a public figure (in this case across 10000+ sentences of public communication), it is not the role of encyclopedias to make unqualified judgements regarding the validity of those hypotheses/analyses, nor to frame a living person by those unqualified judgements. Richardbrucebaxter (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The science is done elsewhere. Wikipedia just reports about what secondary reliable sources say, —PaleoNeonate – 08:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Please add Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists. This should be relatively uncontroversial, as multiple RSes (not all perfect, but a few good ones) have described Weinstein this way, or have otherwise depicted experts as doing the same: [4] [5] [6] [7]. And several really good RSes have depicted Weinstein as promoting ideas that are elsewhere described as conspiracy theories: [8] ([9] [10] [11])

Thoughts? Thanks. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Do not add more fuel to the fire. Recent arguments have been made on active noticeboards that dispute the implied not controversial nature this issue. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• I am strongly considering nominating that category for deletion. It is potentially committing BLP violations by conflating disagreements with government lockdown policy with "COVID vaccine causes magnetism" lunacy. If there were a category more targeted towards "People promoting claims not based in evidence about COVID vaccines being dangerous or ineffective", I would support the inclusion. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  力, ah I see. Yes for these very politicized labels, I get why things like this become very hairy. It would be like if there were a "Category: Bad person." I think I still support inclusion because I think categories should be assigned based on their platonically ideal understanding, not what happens in practice. But I get why you would be hesitant. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

  I won't create it without consensus (as there may be other problems), but maybe Category:COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theorists? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about a category for people who have and promote discussions in areas of science where there is rapidly evolving understanding, controversy, ongoing research, and the person appears to not be a total whacko but may be heterodox in some views. Basically separate this from lunatics, and recognize that science only exists and moves forward with debate and disagreement a d we should not use judgemental categorical terms like "misinformation" Mckennagene (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

JJMC89, ah sorry, did not realize that was how this was supposed to work. Please accept my apologies for wasting admin time.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2021

INCORRECT: "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6][7]"

PROBLEM: The claim is a logical fallacy [appeal to authority] and is in NO way scientific. The sources cited, Vice, Politico and Reuters, are NOT scientific sources.

To be clear, Weinstein and his wife are exploring two COVID-19 hypotheses: 1. COVID-19 may have escaped a viral lab in Wuhan, China. 2. Ivermectin, a ubiquitous and affordable drug with a long-standing record of safety and efficacy, may be safe and efficacious as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.

Weinstein has had esteemed scientific experts on his Darkhorse podcast, now threatened by YouTube censorship, including the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone. Malone agrees and validates Weinstein's hypotheses related to lab leak, Ivermectin, and COVID-19 vaccine hazards, specifically toxicity of spike proteins.

This Wikipedia page is NOT correct, and is politicizing a public health issue, shutting down critical thinking and public dialog, and Dr. Weinstein's professional reputation is impuned. It appears Wikipedia's incorrect claim is political -- not factual -- by design. The censorious nature of Wikipedia's false claim is deeply alarming.

Weinstein and his wife are not advancing misinformation. To the contrary, they are advancing and exploring QUESTIONS and HYPOTHESES, the questions to which are not yet clear or definitive. Furthermore, Weinstein and his wife are NOT anti-vax. They believe that futher conversation will inevitably lead to scientific evidence supporting public health measures benefitting all humanity.

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION:

Wikipedia could make a simple correction:

"Weinstein and his wife are well-known for employing scientific methodology, exploring controversial hypotheses and questions related to origin, hazards and treatments associated with COVID-19."

I submit this request in good faith. Thank you for your time and serious consideration. 76.92.26.208 (talk) 06:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, none are provided in this request. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2021 (2)

SOURCE:

Dr. Robert Malone

RW Malone MD, LLC’s was co-founded and managed by Dr. Malone.

The inventor of mRNA vaccines and one of world’s foremost experts on messenger mRNA therapeutics - having invented the field in 1988, Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology.

INCORRECT: "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6][7]"

PROBLEM: The claim is a logical fallacy [appeal to authority] and is in NO way scientific. The sources cited, Vice, Politico and Reuters, are NOT scientific sources.

To be clear, Weinstein and his wife are exploring two COVID-19 hypotheses: 1. COVID-19 may have escaped a viral lab in Wuhan, China. 2. Ivermectin, a ubiquitous and affordable drug with a long-standing record of safety and efficacy, may be safe and efficacious as a prophylaxis and treatment for COVID-19.

Weinstein has had esteemed scientific experts on his Darkhorse podcast, now threatened by YouTube censorship, including the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, Dr. Robert Malone. Malone agrees and validates Weinstein's hypotheses related to lab leak, Ivermectin, and COVID-19 vaccine hazards, specifically toxicity of spike proteins.

This Wikipedia page is NOT correct, and is politicizing a public health issue, shutting down critical thinking and public dialog, and Dr. Weinstein's professional reputation is impuned. It appears Wikipedia's incorrect claim is political -- not factual -- by design. The censorious nature of Wikipedia's false claim is deeply alarming.

Weinstein and his wife are not advancing misinformation. To the contrary, they are advancing and exploring QUESTIONS and HYPOTHESES, the questions to which are not yet clear or definitive. Furthermore, Weinstein and his wife are NOT anti-vax. They believe that futher conversation will inevitably lead to scientific evidence supporting public health measures benefitting all humanity.

REQUEST FOR CORRECTION:

Wikipedia could make a simple correction:

"Weinstein and his wife are well-known for employing scientific methodology, exploring controversial hypotheses and questions related to origin, hazards and treatments associated with COVID-19."

I submit this request in good faith. Thank you for your time and serious consideration.

SOURCE: Dr. Robert Malone

RW Malone MD, LLC’s was co-founded and managed by Dr. Malone.

The inventor of mRNA vaccines and one of world’s foremost experts on messenger mRNA therapeutics - having invented the field in 1988, Dr. Malone has extensive research and development experience in the areas of pre-clinical discovery research, clinical trials, vaccines, gene therapy, bio-defense, and immunology. He has over twenty years of management and leadership experience in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, as well as in governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Sincerely, Byron Crews Senior Lecturer, English Wright State University Dayton, Ohio 76.92.26.208 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done. See WP:MEDRS. Wikipedia has a duty to provide accurate information and prevent the spread of medical misinformation. Your proposed edit distort the facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 July 2021

Hello, according to your policy for administrators to edit wikipedia pages, " Administrators... are expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute." There has been a serious campaign to silence Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, who are evolutionary biologists, careful thinkers, and look at up to date science and report on the science involving the pandemic from around the world. YouTube has been working with our government ( https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of-intellectual-capture-on ) to keep Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying from talking about repurposed drugs that seem to work. I realize it sounds likely improbable, but I've been witnessing it in real time, all the while checking into all of Bret and Heather's sources as they post them. I've found multiple articles from the NIH on the data Bret and Heather are reporting on: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ ; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ ; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

Please delete the sentence saying "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions.[5][6][7]" along with it's affiliated 3 articles. The Vice article [5] does not disprove Ivermectin's efficacy against COVID-19, but only gives an opinion about the research. I point you to the NIH articles above. Regarding the spike protein and cytotoxicity [6][7], I refer you to another NIH article calling into question the spike protein, which is a conservative view on the topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7827936/. A quote from another published article, "In the new study, the researchers created a “pseudovirus” that was surrounded by SARS-CoV-2 classic crown of spike proteins, but did not contain any actual virus. Exposure to this pseudovirus resulted in damage to the lungs and arteries of an animal model—proving that the spike protein alone was enough to cause disease". This is from the Salk Institute, which links to the actual study in the article: https://www.salk.edu/news-release/the-novel-coronavirus-spike-protein-plays-additional-key-role-in-illness/.

Please also delete the following section on Weinstein's Wikipedia page, "COVID-19 Further information: COVID-19 misinformation David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and scientist dedicated to exposing pseudoscience,[42] has described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation", and as a supporter of using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.[43] Weinstein took ivermectin during a livestream video and said both he and his wife had not been vaccinated because of their "fears" concerning COVID-19 vaccines.[5] There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.[44][45] YouTube demonetized the couple's channels in response to their claims about Ivermectin.[46]". I refer you to the initial NIH articles regarding Ivermectin's potential efficacy above. For convenience, here they are again: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/ ; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/ ; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/. To be clear, I am not asking for a replacement at this time. Please simply delete these sections and work with Bret Weinstein on what to replace them with. I am sure he will be more than fair in describing himself for others to see.

In the future, I would strongly encourage all the administrators to look for data from medical journals regarding COVID-19, not news media. When reading medical journals, always be sure to check the conflicts of interest sections, as well as the comments, if any. These sections in a medical journal are a secondary source of scrutiny on medical journals and their robustness of methodology and accuracy of reporting data.

Thank you,

Katelyn Woodworth 76.17.212.95 (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done All but perhaps one of the links in the above fail to meet the WP:MEDRS standard; repeatedly calling things "NIH articles" apparently because they are available via PubMed suggests a lack of familiarity with how medical literature works, and one is even to an MDPI journal that has been demonstrably incompetent on the subject of COVID-19. There are no policy-based grounds given to remove the sourced statements about the demonetization of Weinstein's YouTube channels. XOR'easter (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Violation of wikipedias own rules

"For content to remain on Wikipedia it must be neutral, verifiable, and attributed to a reputable source." - who is explaining why this statement about spreading information is any of these things? I think whoever put that in and then decided to hit the "lock" button owes some answers here. Mckennagene (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised about the full protection, although a form of protection was necessary considering the disruption in the recent history. I suspect that semi or extended-confirmed protection was not enough considering the off-line canvassing that caused some sleeping and long-term accounts to appear. While full protection persists, the way is to propose specific changes, seeking consensus for them here, so that an administrator can apply them. WP:FIXBIAS is an essay but it may be useful, —PaleoNeonate – 08:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I suppose given the flare-up in disruption, protection was inevitable (Deepfriedokra was the protecting admin). This article should probably join the many other controversial COVID-19 articles that have WP:ECP, given the rabble-rousing going on off-wiki. Alexbrn (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, well the protection has expired and all hell has broken loose. I've requested ECP at RPP. Pinging Deepfriedokra. I think this should dampen things down for a while - quite sensible discussions are taking place at several noticeboard and wise eyes are watching. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

For me, the article should reinstate 1 year semi-protection because there are BLP civil violations from IP addresses which states that Bret Weinstein is dead today, which is sometimes is fake. The semi-protection is supposedly end on 27 June 2022. 180.242.13.201 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Offwiki Canvassing

See https://twitter.com/thepaulmcginn/status/1411038400086478856 (Permanent archive) https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1411043303605161985 (permanent archive) this is what explains the sudden uptick in activity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia founder and general crackpot Larry Sanger is getting in on this now. https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1411067692606500867 Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I had never heard of sanger before. That was a rollercoaster of a piece and he makes some valid observations (and some less valid ones imo). Thanks for sharing. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger is a conspiracy theorist who promotes anti-vaccine misinformation. [12]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

In the section "Personal life and political views", under "COVID-19", add the following paragraph:

Bret has facilitated conversations with Pierre Kory, M.P.A., MD, who testified in front of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding Ivermectin, as well as Robert W. Malone, M.D., M.S., who is the discoverer of in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and the inventor of mRNA vaccines. Dr. Kory and Dr. Malone are members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance. Underscore08 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot understand how that improves the article, so no. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 18:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin review as a prophylaxis

The fact that scientists don't agree on ivermectin yet, shouldn't mean that we only link to one single study (which focusses on hydrocloroquine instead on ivermectin). This needs to be updated, a good place to start would be this review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1c02:2b1e:8100:7488:f30b:bbf2:ddb8 (talk • contribs)

Scientists (with relevant expertise) generally do agree on Ivermectin. That's a previously rejected review published in a minor journal, out of line with every major medical body on the planet, so WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear Alexbrn, could you please provide sources for the 'line' of "every major medical body on the planet"? When I perform a simple search regarding Ivernmectin on pubmed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ivernmectin&page=2), I find 5 out of the first 20 articles talking about the drug in regards to Covid19 and I find no article claiming it to be ineffective. All articles talk about the need for more data but the labels given range from promising to death-reducing. Meta-studies like this one published recently (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/) - while highlighting the scarcity of and need for reliable data - tend towards a positive effect. Vaccination is still vastly preferable, but painting the Ivernmectin crowd with the same brush as the Hydroxychloroquin one seems unfair to me. Regards, Thrombozyt

The burden of evidence for any treatment is to show adequate evidence. For ivermectin/COVID that does not exist, although a lot of misinformation has been spread to the contrary. See our Ivermectin article for the positions of major medical bodies. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I haven't claimed efficacy of the treatment. You have claimed, that scientists agree in an overwhelming fashion. By linking the Ivernmectin page, I'd take it that you want to say that "every major medical body on the planet" agrees to the line of "During the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was widely spread claiming that ivermectin was beneficial for treating and preventing COVID-19.[14] Such claims are not backed by sound evidence." (taken from the Ivernmectin page). The sources there are the EMA saying it wouldn't recommend application (which is obvious, given the scant data) and an opinion piece in a scientific journal. The actual literature is indicates a tentative beneficial effect in treatment and prevention, running counter to the wiki-entry. So could I please get primary/secondary literature that supports your strong claim of "ivernmeactin is not beneficial for treatment and prevention"? Or could you at least acknowledge, that your claim maybe was too strong and a re-examination of position might be in order? Regards, Thrombozyt

What claim? you're making quotations up it seems. To repeat: there is no good evidence of benefit; claiming otherwise, is misinformation. Simple. Alexbrn (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The "made up" quotations derive from your initial response in this very thread and the Covid related point in the lead of the Ivernmectin article you linked. I even tell you straight where it's from if it's not from literally 5 lines above. But OK - go ahead and tell me the line of "every major medical body on the planet". You logically must know that line, if you claim something is out of line. What do all scientists agree on? And why isn't it reflected in the medical literature?. Regards Thrombozyt.

I have a lot of qualms about how the media is covering Ivermectin (primarily that they appear unable to explain or even understand the difference between being 20% effective, 60% effective, and 99% effective), but the standard for Wikipedia is clear: whether or not Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID is subject to WP:MEDRS, and as extant studies give inconclusive results, we cannot say that Ivermectin is effective. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Many of the misunderstandings stem from the fact that the lab studies showing that ivermectin could block replication of SARS-CoV-2 were lab studies -- in vitro, not in humans, or even in animals -- and the concentrations required to inhibit replication were much higher than the currently authorized doses. Results from clinical studies are all over the map -- some show no benefit, others a potential benefit, but most studies so far are small, and have additional limitations, including different dosing regimens and use of concomitant medications. So I totally agree that WP's current stance on ivermectin is proper, and will remain so until there are definitive study results, one way or the other. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lab leak claims

One of the other things that comes up regarding Bret Weinstein's coverage of COVID-19 is that he is strong supporter of "lab leak" hypothesis. Claiming that the probablility of a lab leak is over 95% 1. Should this be included? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable source. A brief mention may be due. Alexbrn (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree the claim is valid, but due to ongoing issues and two active noticeboards regarding this entry and its sourcing I think it would be better to wait. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Collapse off-topic content

Alex, you posted this article on the fringe theorists noticeboard here a little over a week ago. I have no problem with regards to the claim itself or the source, but your comment wording here makes it seem as though you both were previously unaware of it and given both of you are frequently active on that noticeboard and share fringe theorist information and publications it should be disclosed overtly that both of you likely were. This is getting into Wikipedia:Advocacy imo. FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I don't understand what you are trying to say, and the same is probably true for other readers too. Could you speak in whole sentences and use words which are a bit clearer than "it"? You have no problems with which claim? Hemiauchenia and Alexbrn were previously unaware of what? and likely were what? It sounds as if you are accusing them of being biased though, based on frequenting WP:FTN. Before you do that, you should read WP:FRINGE, WP:YWAB and WP:LUNATICS. There is nothing wrong with fighting fringe POVs. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Of course not and I agree nor am I trying to discredit Alex (an advocacy claim is not a claim of bias or lack of credibility), it is pointing out that in due course of advocating for an idea or set of ideas (in this case regarding weinstein and psudoscience and fringe theories) you supersede the guiding policy of both BLOP and NPOV (which when in conflict with anything but another fundamental policy NPOV is to be followed) especially when those claims are hotly debated publicly (actively), and more importantly internally by Wikipedia editors regarding the subject of the entry also actively. Additionally Wikipedia:advocacy covers your defense specifically:"Wikipedia does not indiscriminately collect "true" information, but aims to synthesize such information into an accurate, proportionate representation of the state of human knowledge. Our responsibility is not just to verify material, but to contextualize and weight it appropriately. Insisting on undue prominence for a true but minor or tangential viewpoint is a canonical violation of the neutral point of view." From what I can tell Alex is extremely intelligent and an accomplished veteran Wikipedia editor with many years of service and a PhD in English of all things. What would lead them to make a comment that implies they are observing new information and certifying it as reasonable for the first time, when they are the source of it being present on the noticeboard all three of you frequent? Finally Lunatics does not apply nor is Ivermectin an alternative therapy, it has a FDA approved clinical use and is being currently actively researched by many notable institutions as a covid treatment. YWAB is an essay so I wont comment on it although I disagree with the assumption that weinstein meets the test to be labeled a quack, conspiracy theorist, or psudoscientist just yet.FrederickZoltair (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC) what. OK, I won't ask you anything ever again, because you ignore the actual questions and instead pontificate about things you do not understand well. Forget it, bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I am sorry you feel that way. If you choose to participate further, please do so with courtesy and by citing policy rather than with personal attacks.FrederickZoltair (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Err, It was I who introduced that Skepic article to the Talk page (see above) and yes, now that I've actually read it it does seem a reasonable source. FrederickZoltair is imagining weird "implications" in a plain statement. Alexbrn (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I received several notifications rapidly regarding this so I apologize if there is a protocol to follow and I am behaving inappropriately in regards to it with this message. Alex, I am sorry for my offending claim and now realize I was being much too sensitive and not giving you the benefit of the doubt or assuming good faith. I should not have made the advocacy claim in this way or in this particular article's forum and if I have issues with feeling that a particular viewpoint is over-represented I will do so in the proper forum. I hope you can forgive me and we can continue in good faith. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the section where it was posted above, the article in The Skeptic is opinion. It may or may not rely on secondary sources as the basis of its critique (I don't remember any references) and it's directly critical of the individuals, not the arguments, which is the appropriate target of a critique of a scientific position. Finally, while I'm not advocating for credentialism, a couple of psychologists criticizing a couple of biologists for not being virologists was an interesting combination. catseyes (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As you say, it's not really about the medical science (which is settled elsewhere), but more about the social/personal/media factors. For that, it could be quite useful, especially bearing WP:PARITY in mind. Broscience on Youtube does not need a super-strength real science source as counterpoint. Alexbrn (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

change "There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.[44][45] Weinstein has erroneously described the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein which is produced through vaccination as "cytotoxic".[46][47]

to "There is no evidence as of now of benefit from ivermectin in treating COVID-19.[44][45] However, Ivermectin to be studied as possible treatment in UK. [link to BBD article i include below]"

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, Reuters fact checkers etc don't know either

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377 Nunoelder (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done proposed new slant is unsourced/undue. Alexbrn (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The claim that there is "no evidence" is not supported by the WHO's own statement. The qualification of their statement from the WHO's site states there is "very low certainty evidence and future research has a large potential for reducing uncertainty". This is not the same as "no evidence". It fact, is an acknowledgement that there is evidence, but that conclusions can only be drawn with "very low certainty", and therefore it needs further study.

Second, the BMJ is cited as a source, but similar to the WHO cite the conclusion of the cited study does not support the "no evidence" claim in the article. It concludes that "Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality", but with respect to Ivermectin states. "it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection". These are dramatically different statements with respect to evidentiary conclusions for anyone familiar with meta-analysis frameworks such as Cochrane GRADE or the CONSORT protocol.

Neither citation even enters the neighborhood of "no evidence". They are not even making a statement about the strength of the evidence, but rather the certainty. These are distinct within the context of meta-analysis. For example, if 5 studies concluded 100% effectiveness of Ivermectin, the strength of the assertions would be high, but due to methodological issues, such as poorly documented protocol, poor randomization, etc. the certainty could be quite low, "highly uncertain" in this analysis formulation. Where the strength of the assertions is low and the certainty of the assertions is high, then you see a conclusive statement e.g. Hydroxychloroquine. This is not the case with respect to Ivermective, where the strength is high, but the certainty is very low.

Lastly, why is Alexbrn being allowed to veto or close discussions regarding the edits in this article when it is the quality and partiality of his edits that are in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodox2021 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This phrase "no evidence" you are quoting as the basis of your grumble. Where are you quoting it from? Alexbrn (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, "no good evidence" in the COVID-19 second. Still, "no good evidence" is a subjective phrase and nowhere reflects the language used by either the WHO or BMJ. For example, if the registered randomized controlled trial proposed by the WHO were to result in a strong indication of efficacy of Ivermectin, suddenly all of the trials to date become strong supporting evidence of that conclusion. A declaration along these lines is a fair but neutral statement: Meta-analyses performed by the WHO and BMJ have characterized the evidence for the efficacy of Ivermectin as "very low certainty" and "highly uncertain" respectively. The WHO has called for registered clinical trials to establish the efficacy, if any, of Ivermectin in the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. Heterodox2021 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Right so the entire basis of your grumble is refuted. Please read more carefully. "No good evidence" is a fine summary for our lay readership, and we avoid FRIN-like stuff about "calls for research". The request here in any case was previously answered, and you are repeating your suggestions in substance below. Alexbrn (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Survey on lede

Should the sentence "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions." be in the lead? (this is a !vote but not an RFC) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal, per both ongoing noticeboard topics there is a dire lack of consensus, issues with balance, and with VICE not being a very strong source in clear violation of Wikipedia:BOLP. On a more opinion based note, political spectrum news bias is becoming extremely common for all significant political ideologies and only does a disservice to whatever topic it infects and should not used as a source in an encyclopedia. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE. The lede summarizes the body, so rather than trying to bomb it, it would be better to discuss what should be in the body, and how it is best summarized. Alexbrn (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I was not casting a vote. Due to the rampant claims of this entry failing to be impartial, the best solution in my opinion is not to engage with the controversy until the passionate mud slinging currently going on in the popular media sphere has died down.

• Support inclusion. This is one of the most notable things about Weinstein and his wife, and it's something that comes up a lot when you look for news articles about them: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] etc etc. So it's clear that this is one of the main ways RSes talk about Weinstein. Wiki policy tells us that the lead should contain the most notable and due information about a subject, based on coverage in RSes and the article body itself. For Weinstein, that means including his spread of misinformation. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing up those extra sources, because it illustrates my much larger points about bias pointedly as well as other issues with the sourcing in general. Two of them are opinion pieces, and the several I checked at Media Bias are obviously unreliable. Salon.com, Daily Beast, The Olympian, The Federalist, Huff Post, Fox News. Per Wikipedia:RS these cannot be used or if they are they should also voice equal opposing ideas. Additionally, google searches are inherently affected by search engine optimization and recent event controversy, so I feel as though just googling things is an extremely slippery slope when used to arrive at non-bias sources.FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

MBFC is generally considered not a useful source for assessing source reliability on Wikipedia because it has an unclear reporting methodology and is by one guy with little media expertise, see WP:MBFC. Check WP:RSP for more relevant ratings. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is the same argument I am making against Vice. Additionally my point was not that we should use media bias fact check before certifying a source, but that that a bias does exist in several of the links above and that can be confirmed outside of MBFC. FrederickZoltair (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, let's go link by link:

• 4. Vice News. No consensus on reliability, currently being debated on noticeboards. Not an opinion piece. However, the author (Anna Merlan) is generally considered an expert on conspiracy theories and has written at least one book about the topic that has been given considerable praise in extremely reliable outlets [24] [25] [26]. We can use this to help see how the press considers her journalism (of high quality). She describes Weinstein in detail as promoting misinformation and conspiracy theories.

• 5. Reuters is considered one of the best available sources for reliable reporting. Not an opinion piece. Describes in detail how the claims made by Weinstein in his youtube video are misleading and false.

• 6. Politifact is "generally considered reliable" for determining the veracity of claims of political candidates, and especially for attributable statements. Not an opinion piece. They describe in detail how the claims made by Weinstein in his youtube video about mRNA vaccines are misleading and false.

• 7. Salon is considered reliable for attributed statements. Arguably an opinion piece. Mentions Weinstein only in passing, but goes on to describe many of the ideas that Weinstein as promoted as misinformation, with attribution to an expert (Phil Torres, the author).

• 8 The Daily Beast is considered generally reliable for news, but also has lots of opinion, though this is not, strictly speaking, an "opinion piece." It's reliable for understanding how others view Weinstein, though, since it is one among many sources. Describes Weinstein as sharing "conspiracy theories."

• 9. Houston Press. Not an opinion piece. Not covered by RSP, but has an editorial board and has won a few rewards for journalistic reporting. It's a local news source, which are not the best news sources we use, but are still considered reliable, and just adds to the overall set of sources here. Has a monthly readership of ~1.6 million. Describes Weinstein's promotion of "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation."

• 10. The Olympian. Not covered by RSP, but has an editorial board and ethics standards in reporting. Local journalistic outlet, and is considered reliable just like other local outlets with editorial boards, independence, etc. Has a weekly readership of ~27,000. Especially pertinent here as it is local/regional to Weinstein. Reliable for the attributed statement that faculty/professors at his former college have described him as spreading "misinformation." (pre-pandemic).

• 11 The Skeptic (UK) is widely considered reliable, has won press awards for factual reporting, has an editorial board, etc. though not covered by RSP. Not an opinion piece. Describes in detail the claims of Weinstein and his wife as "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories."

• 12. Fox News opinion piece, but reliable for repeating the attributed statement of YouTube that Weinstein "violated medical misinformation policies."

• 13. The Federalist. Opinion piece, from a generally unreliable outlet, but useful for the attributed statement of YouTube that Weinstein "violated medical misinformation policies."

• 14. Huffington Post. Reliable for the fact that other experts (professors, faculty) have said Weinstein has spread misinformation on more than one occasion (pre-pandemic, even) HuffPo is generally reliable for statements of fact and attributable quotes.

You may discount some of these sources for whatever reason, but all of them together, especially the GR sources like Reuters, The Skeptic, and the local news sources with large readerships, come together to support this claim. These sources altogether provide us a picture of how others view Weinstein, and how RSes view Weinstein, and so it is clear he is viewed as "spreading misinformation" and even as a "conspiracy theorist."--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My argument is not against reuters or skeptic which are valid (I literally just referenced a reuters article in the noticeboard debate regarding this issue). It is against ideological narratives that unfairly represent people and issues and do not disclose their interest in doing so. If I had not engaged with Alex in my section above or created the NPOV noticeboard this debate would not be occurring at all in any capacity (except as a way to cement the current entry with its in my opinion problematic statement in the lead in place against brigading), and it is very possible you or others would be making changes to this BOLP entry or supporting edits across Wikipedia using clearly biased sources that outside of MB FC are possible to validate as extremely narrative driven and unreliable. Additionally, does the existence of the controversy of these sources here (not just by me mind you) not point to there being a lack of consensus on their validity? Yes sources exist on either side of the fence, no you cannot say Anna Merlan is more or less reliable than Ben Shapiro. One represents the left, one represents the right, neither are quacks and both are exceedingly intelligent and both have authored books (although Shapiro appears to have authored significantly more). This might make me seem like a conservative, but I hope you trust that I am not and I am merely pointing out how sinister it is to ignore people you disagree with in favor of those you do. In this case, the pre-supposition: "Weinstein is a conspiracy theorist" cannot be certified fact when there is virulent debate regarding both his claims and his status from many on both sides of the spectrum including weinstein himself. What makes this all even worse is this is all regarding a viral event that is still unfolding. I mean come on people.... I hate to be associated with these loons brigading the entry, but there is some evidence to support at least part of their collective frustration.FrederickZoltair (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

FrederickZoltair, I think the best phrasing for the sources we have is "BW and his wife HH have been criticized as spreading misinformation..." How do you feel about that? It is perhaps the way to say it that is most supported by the above.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a reasonable statement in my opinion and is much more neutral. You should suggest that on the NPOV noticeboard section. FrederickZoltair (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per Shibbolethink. It's a noteworthy aspect of his career, and the main text gives enough weight to it that it deserves a line in the lede. I'm wary of lengthening that line with circumlocutions like "have been criticized for", though "wary of" is not "completely opposed on principle". XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Over on his Twitter feed, Weinstein is saying that the forthcoming Oxford trial has the goal of killing public interest in Ivermectin and preserving the EUAs on which Big Pharma’s Covid portfolio depends. That's not just a "let's be prudent and wait for all the data" position (which itself can be a rhetorical ploy — creationists do that all the time). That's a "the forthcoming 'data' is going to be rigged" position. XOR'easter (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Include and expand we should say specifically what misinformation is being shared, and possibly mention his Youtube ban/"censorship" as well. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the Youtube demonetization/ban/censorship notable when other platforms have let him be? Youtube is not a reliable source itself, it is a video hosting website. Additionally, it has a troubling history with viral controversies such as this one from last week.FrederickZoltair (talk)

It's notable and duly weighted if lots of RSes are mentioning it. Regardless of what other platforms are doing.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't report on it because we think that YouTube was right or because we think that YouTube was wrong; we write about it because the extent of documentation and commentary on it indicates that it is significant. XOR'easter (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability is not the only condition that needs to be satisfied. The primary reason for the NPOV and Vice noticeboards remain. What benefit does this change bring specifically to Wikipedia:BOLP or NPOV? I think this entry has issues already with WP:RECENTISM, Wikipedia:DUE, and maybe WP:NOTNEWS already and we should resolve that before we proceed down this path of adding more current event information (I do not think we should regardless). But if we do, WP:BREAKING applies and a current event tag should be added to the entry page given that this entire situation is currently being passionately covered by popular media. FrederickZoltair (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

"Breaking news" is a tag we typically apply to something like a hurricane currently hitting a coastline — a topic where there might be hour-to-hour updates. In this case, a banner like {{Current}} would be clutter; as its documentation says, It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for enlightening me I am still learning. FrederickZoltair (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion per Shibbolethink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose in lead The lead of this article is very short and this isn't due as basically the only non-boiler plate comment about Weinstein. Additionally, Weinstein this is an area where I would be very careful about the sources like Vice misrepresenting what Weinstein has actually said. I have heard his concerns regarding the vaccines which largely relate to unknown long term risks due to a lack of data. In the discussions I have heard (which may not be the ones Vice is referencing) Weinstein has taken a sound scientific stance stating what is known and unknown and why he thinks we should be concerned about the unknowns with the clear understanding that he feels things would change with more data. I believe his comments with respect to ivermectin are similar. If I'm not mistaken the sources talking about ivermectin state we don't have data to show its effective. I believe that aligns with Weistein's claims as well. He is in a camp that argues the preliminary data is sufficient to justify further research. To paint such claims with the same broad brush as those who have said MMR vaccines causes autism is effectively misinforming our readers. I also think RECENT must come into play here. A few months back anyone promoting the lab leak hypothesis was labeled as clearly a nut (Politifact pants on fire) yet we are now seeing that line in the sand being pulled back (and PF retracted their story from what I understand). This information makes sense in the body where exact claims can be discussed but as it has been put in the lead I think it violates NPOV and needs to be removed on policy grounds. Springee (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support inclusion This is clearly one of the most notable things about him at present. However "spread misinformation" is vague. Instead it should be "during the COVID-19 pandemic, Weinstein promoted Ivermectin as a treatment of the disease, despite their being no good evidence for its effectiveness". Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia Can you help me find another reliable source that says he "promotes Ivermectin as a treatment of the disease" directly? It literally quotes him in the VICE article saying "“We are not going to make any recommendations as to what you should do,” Weinstein said, shortly before downing the drug. “And we are not going to say anything conclusive about what the data say, because the data are not themselves conclusive. However, it doesn’t mean the data don’t imply things.” His attributed quote calls into question that claim, and if the argument in Vice's favor is they are simply relaying a fact in the form of a quote regarding the claim I believe it then disproves the assertion that he is promoting it actively as a treatment does it not? FrederickZoltair (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That's just weaponised doubt. He is described Vice and SBM as a prominent Ivermectin advocate, the fact that he added a half-hearted disclaimer is irrelevant. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There's something in The Skeptic article about his use of the "performative tactical disclaimer".[27] Alexbrn (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I was tickled at the claim of weaponized doubt being followed up with skeptic.org link. Got me good lol. Anyway, "Proponent of Ivermectin" is a description, and it is a vague one at that fails to fully or even basically summarize someones ideas or claims (for example it could mean they are a proponent of Ivermectin for its current approved clinical use as an anti-parasitic). One of the reasons why the VICE article's reliability is in question in my opinion (noticeboard) is because they are implying in no small way weinstein is acting irresponsibly and is guilty of making a claim with much deeper and serious implications than what weinstein has himself claimed he is making (and clarified on publicly and specifically in the context of the ongoing backlash). I fail to see the reason in an argument for using out of context quotes and implications of wrongdoing rather than directly showing full context of the original ideas (like an audio clip from the podcast VICE is referencing letting weinstein explain his claims himself, or a full attributed quote not framed aggressively with a paragraph of supporting text before or after). Again, I am not arguing for weinsteins positions or Ivermectin use (nor wish to defend his decision to use it on his podcast that was silly imo), or antivaxx ideas or quackery I am arguing that we need to stick to the NPOV policy and equally weight all notable claims if any single side is chosen to be included rather than hop on board currently active hate train and try to make it as clear as possible that weinstein is a quack using wikivoice (which still has not been established unequivocally or universally as per the active fights in the political media sphere currently taking place still as of this writing). In addition, there is a huge push here to label him and move on and I fail to see the urgency or the need to do so explicitly on a BLOP especially before the controversy dies down. FrederickZoltair (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

He can say, "We are not going to make any recommendations as to what you should do" -- to cover his arse, medico-legally -- but the fact that he is taking the drug himself is ample evidence of active promotion, IMHO. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support inclusion The only counter I see is that of WP: Recentism or WP: Not a newspaper, because this edit ocurrs in the middle of a news spike. However, I've checked Weinstein's positions, and he has doubled down on the central points (he did retract a tweet and introduced caveats to some parts of his arguments in the Megin Kelly interview, though). Weinstein seems to think that this controversy will age well, that when the results of new studies come out, Ivermectin will be redeemed or something. For the moment, he is at odds with MEDRS and we should report it. The lead is fine for me, as long as the in-section provides full context of his statements. Forich (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Neo-Nazi

Upon typing Bret's name in the search bar under his name you'll find "Neo-Nazi biologist and evolutionary thinker" 207.228.78.21 (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It says American biologist and evolutionary thinker for me. I tried purging the cache. Maybe check now? If you're still getting it, maybe provide a screenshot so we can investigate further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, apologies, it was an error on my end. Clearing the cache on my device worked. Thank you 207.228.78.21 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

New sources

• Browne M, Kavanagh C (23 June 2021). "You're probably not Galileo: scientific advance rarely comes from lone, contrarian outsiders". The Skeptic.

Could be useful? (I shall now read it!) Alexbrn (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Anna Merlan (24 June 2021). "Why Is the Intellectual Dark Web Suddenly Hyping an Unproven COVID Treatment?". Vice.

Another to add to the reading list. Alexbrn (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I notice that in the article in The Skeptic, it refers to Drs. Weinstein and Heyring by title without mentioning their backgrounds, other than to point out that they weren't virologists (which is true, but pretty specific, given that they are biologists). This is an opinion piece by one set of scientists about another set of scientists. The critical scientists may be correct about the quality (or lack thereof in Drs. Weinstein and Heyring's positions, but attacking the position rather than the person is appropriate for that type of critique. There's a lot of bad science lately, and criticism that explains why it's bad and how it should be different is key to changing that. This piece isn't that. catseyes (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The Skeptic article says, Ivermectin is an unproven treatment for COVID-19 with only low quality evidence currently available as to efficacy., with a link you could have clicked on. So, your characterization of that article falls short. Yes, it does attack the position. Mentioning that Weinstein and Heying (not Heyring) are not virologists is not an attack on them, it is an excuse for their not being competent enough to come to a valid, evidence-based conclusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Write about COVID-19 views in lead

MOS:LEAD should summarize the COVID-19 section. I suggest the following

In 2021 Weinstein began spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19 vaccines, and promoted Ivermectin as COVID-19 treatment without any evidence.

Yegourt (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Please check out the NPOV and Reliable source noticeboards regarding this change. here and here. The debate is ongoing and you are welcome to participate. FrederickZoltair (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Quilette piece

Suprisingly critical new article on Bret in Quilette written by Claire Berlinski and .... Yuri Deigin? (yes, that Yuri Deigin). Probably not usable but interesting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That is an astonishingly good article, much more fair than the Vice article. However, regarding its usage as a source, I expect that Weinstein fans will still cry foul regarding it being "neutral" for BLP concerns, and it obviously doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Astonishingly good is generous imo, and there is a big failure to appreciate human psychology if there is a presupposition that this article changes the landscape at all in my opinion. Not to mention the click-baity headline, and immediate insult to any student involved in the Evergreen controversy by calling them SJW zombies. Since when has an article that is about as openly contempt as possible against someone, their fans, and goes out of its way for no reason to be insulting to others not even involved in the current controversy going to convince that following of anything? Not to mention it aptly points out that weinstein has given rise to millions of voices on the left and right which is not a minority. Part of the reason in my opinion for the violent reaction is that he is well spoken, has valid scientific credentials, and directly responds to criticism in a non-weasel way which is both convincing and interesting as the near vitriolic reaction in the press has been peaking and shouting what an incomprehensible and wrong jerk he is (at least some of them are saying that). Not to mention, he is given a platform and in some cases openly defended by large media personalities who themselves are pretty intelligent and have large followings. Many people heard him speak on Megyn Kelly and Joe Rogan and while Joe Rogan did not hit him in weak spots, Megyn Kelly did and Weinstein did anything but shy away from the challenge or misdirect like some Donald Trumps I have heard speak. Truly remaining neutral is incredibly important, and that is more true with deeply controversial issues than any other imo in terms of creating the best Wikipedia. FrederickZoltair (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim. Good to know the item exists, but we shouldn't make use of it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, it's not a useful source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Can we not use the Quillette article as an opinion piece? "Claire Berlinski, writing for Quillete, said that ... ". Yegourt (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that anything published in Quillette would satisfy WP:DUE unless and until a higher-quality source paid attention to it. XOR'easter (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Remains to hope that it still has some impact on its intended audience, —PaleoNeonate – 08:02, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

change "There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19" (references may need changing) to "New studies show that Ivermectin may be of benefit in treating Covid-19" https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00239-X/fulltext & https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/oxford-university-explores-anti-parasitic-drug-ivermectin-covid-19-treatment-2021-06-22/ CosmosGRL (talk) 09:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done identical request declined elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Covid-19 and Ivermectin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article should include mention that "University of Oxford scientists are trialling giving Ivermectin" Ref: [[28]] (www.bbc.com/news/health-57570377) Sjmantyl (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That is mentioned at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. It has nothing to do with Bret Weinstein, though. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Considering that the article states "David Gorski, ... described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation" who supports using ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19." I'd say it is relevant. Sjmantyl (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS. The fact that some trials are being run has nothing to do with Weinstein; nor does it have anything to do with what Gorski said. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:NPOV it would be prudent to mention that a) David G states it's disinformation, b) there is (as of today) no conclusive evidence c) Trials have begun by reputable source. None of the prior are in conflict with each other, and thus do not violate WP:SYNTHESIS. Sjmantyl (talk) 09:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's no good evidence for something, and somebody claims it is effective, that is misinformation/quackery. That's kind of obvious and it's what Gorski points out. The trials have nothing to do with that. Alexbrn (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The very citation for ivermectin not having any good evidence shows evidence that ivermectin shows significantly significant effect in preventing covid19 infection and hospitalization. How is following that line of evidence that is trending positive "misinformation"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.84.49 (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

And even if they had, mentioning them would still be WP:SYNTH. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a bad faith way to phrase what Bret Weinstein says. He isn't saying that ivermectin is effective on a hunch with no good evidence. He is convinced there is good evidence and acts accordingly. The dispute is really only about what constitutes good enough evidence. I get that Wikipedia must do what AP and Gorski say, but could this dispute at least be documented on this page correctly? Dylath Leen (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You mean, medical professionals like Gorski and medical laymen like Weinstein are "disputing" on what constitutes good evidence, instead of, the layman gets it wrong and the professional corrects him? That is not the way we usually handle things like that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

So why is the Oxford team doing the research if the outcome is clear? Just wondering. 193.166.253.150 (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oxford (and others) and doing rigorous RCTs because there is no good evidence. If there was good evidence, such investigations would not be needed. This is clear from the text at COVID-19 drug repurposing research. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

What you are trying to pass off as an argument, does not even work as an argument from authority fallacy. Gorski is not actually arguing against Weinstein, but other highly credentialed medical professionals with relevant expertise who have a different assessment of the evidence around ivermectin. So what's the next step? Dylath Leen (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There are open threads at WP:FT/N#Bret Weinstein, etc or WP:RSN#Vice on Bret Weinstein if you want to get wider input. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

These do not seem to be helpful in the slightest and are almost completely missing the point. At best, from an encyclopedic point of view, the dispute over ivermectin's effectivnes is unrelated to Weinstein. He only talks about it on his show. I seriously doubt he or his show are so notable we have to mention one particular topic... As Hob Gadling helpfully points out, although he is a scientist, Weinstein is not an expert in the field. Why are we even wasting space on this page with this stuff? What is more, with an accusation of spreading misinformation, which is outrageous and I cannot imagine the mental gymnastics Gorski had to do to arrive at such a claim. Again, how is that even notable, when the dispute is somewhere else anyway? Dylath Leen (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dylath Leen, What decides whether it's notable is a literature/sources review of Bret Weinstein, not a literature/sources review of Ivermectin. The question to answer is "When reading about Bret Weinstein, how prominent are his comments about Ivermectin?" And from my cursory reading of the above, the answer is "actually fairly prominent."

We need to avoid WP:RECENTISM of course, but it's worth noting that a search of "Bret Weinstein" on Lexis Nexis returns quite a few articles about his Ivermectin thoughts.

Literally the first result for my institutional LexisNexis is a Yahoo News article about his Youtube censorship and Ivermectin views. Several other Ivermectin articles are on the first page of results.

In the absence of high quality scholarly sources about this, these reliable news sources are what we default to for assessing what is WP:DUE inclusion. I think the fact that this is heavily covered in secondary sources demonstrates his views on Ivermectin are absolutely worth including here. Probably not on the Ivermectin article, but they are worth including in the Bret Weinstein article.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To me WP:RECENTISM clearly applies here. Anyway, if this is all this takes for inclusion, then I go back to my point of reporting on it correctly and without bias. How about not putting "fears" in scare quotes? Why are they even there? Dylath Leen (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not "scare quotes" but actual ones. Fears is the word actually used, and we need to be clear this is not Wikipedia's invention. Alexbrn (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but you know what it looks like. Especially considering previous sentence falsely paints them as liars. Could we at least expand on the quote to make it look less biased? Perhaps include "[they] have fears"? Dylath Leen (talk) 07:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorski is not actually arguing against Weinstein Well, he does call him a "a COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation, particularly about the “lab leak theory” of SARS-CoV-2 origins". I don't care if you call this "arguing against". That Kory also gets one of those subjects wrong is neither here nor there.

It isn't as if every MD knows how to do good science or how to judge it. If you look at Kory's article, you will find that he has never done any studies about effectiveness of drugs and is an expert for something else. Gorski, on the other hand, has lots of experience in this field, and he can tell good and bad science apart, as evidenced by his decade-long public writing about it and his good standing among experts.

So, actually, it is you who is trying to "pass off as an argument" the argument from authority#Appeal to false authority fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Wikipedia says Wikipedia is correct. Doubling down on the logical fallacies, are we? Let's use Wikipedia for the next part.

It was originally misquoted it here, but the article and the source actually say "disinformation". As in, Weinstein knows what he is saying about ivermectin and the lab leak theory is false. Gorski is so good in debunking pseudoscience he developed the ability to read minds. Perhaps he should be included in Telepathy.

In all seriousness, I would expect libel to not make it into BLP article on Wikipedia. Could we get rid of that until an actual proof Weinstein is knowingly lying emerges? Dylath Leen (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorski is quoted accurately. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Not my point. Gorski is claiming something without any evidence. There is no proof Weinstein is lying. Does that mean nothing? Has Gorski been somehow deemed eternally reliable? Dylath Leen (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

He is absolutely reliable for his own view, which is due. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes, but it does report them. Alexbrn (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, not my point. This is not a dispute. It is a clearly baseless claim. On its face. No matter how reliable a source, if it claims things it could not possibly know and without evidence, perhaps that should give us pause. No? Dylath Leen (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:CLEARLY eh? Your beliefs are irrelevant here. Let's report what relevant experts say without indulging in ingenious interpretations. Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I am entirely unimpressed by that essay. Anyway, these are not my "beliefs", I am following what Wikipedia says about disinformation, i.e. "false or misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive". That is not an interpretation, that is what that word literally means. Gorski demonstrates no basis for such a claim. Is Wikipedia so utterly bound by what a source says? Even in case of malicious or libelous claims in a WP:BLP? Also, a strange use of the word "ingenious". I assume you meant something other than to call my thinking process genius. Dylath Leen (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be with Gorski, not Wikipedia. Your belief, based on a certain interpretation of the text, is that Gorski is wrong. Okay, but irrelevant to editing here. Maybe contact Gorski? Alexbrn (talk) 08:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, not a belief, not an interpretation, not an argument with Gorski. He can certainly write whatever garbage he desires. Do you truly not understand that or are you deliberately misrepresenting me? My argument is with Wikipedia. Why blindly copy and paste this specific and highly dubious claim of his here? Just because he wrote it and he is deemed reliable does not automatically mean it must be on this page. How about showing a bit of restraint, before presenting accusations of lying as an encyclopedic fact? Dylath Leen (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be triggering you into convictions about the righteousness of your own personal interpretations and belief, but Science-Based Medicine is an acknowledged reliable source, especially for fringe science, pseudoscience, antivaxx grift and so on. So it's good. Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your attempts to annoy me by ignoring my points are very transparent. Pretty sure that is against a policy around here. As you already know, I am not disputing the source, just that specific meritless quote from that specific article. Is it truly impossible to simply avoid quoting that? I would appreciate it if you could answer the question and perhaps resist the urge to feign being obtuse again. Dylath Leen (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Is is possible to omit it, but including it is good because it's WP:DUE commentary, and for NPOV helpful to balance out the fringe position(s) of Weinstein. Oh, and you'd better lay off the WP:PA, especially since you're in error. Alexbrn (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad there is at least the option. It seems in no way as WP:DUE, especially not in a section called "Personal life and political views". No way it is an NPOV considering it is a baseless accusation of intentionally lying. The only reason to balance the "fringe" position is the problem of even mentioning it in the first place. It reeks of WP:RECENTISM. I propose to get rid of the whole COVID-19 subheading and possibly mention only the channel demonetization as that seems the only truly neutral and relevant information.

Oh, and you'd better lay off the WP:PA, especially since you're in error. That sounds like a threat, which are also against a Wikipedia policy, if I am not mistaken. Anyway, where exactly am I in error? Dylath Leen (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You're in error in thinking your interpretation and beliefs about Gorski's statement are factual. This section shall stay in aid in NPOV. The onward question at the noticeboards is, however, how best to summarize the problems with Weinstein's problematic COVID statements in the lede. That's not yet clear. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If I am indeed mistaken in my interpretation of Gorski's statement, it should be possible to show how. Can you in any way dispute one or both of the following:

1) Disinformation is "false or misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive"

2) Gorski presents no compelling evidence whatsoever Weinstein is deliberately spreading false or misleading information to deceive

I very much doubt you have any authority to unilaterally decide what "shall stay" in this article. Perhaps be less conspicuous with that WP:OWN. Dylath Leen (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Spreading disinformation" does not necessarily mean "originating misinformation" but can just be to function as a useful idiot, as for example was done when the Harald Walach fraudulent research paper (since retracted) was bigged-up on Weinstein's show. For somebody apparently so concerned about not knowing what people think, you seem awful sure you know what Gorski thinks, and are pushing your interpretation. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Tsk-tsk, arguing by changing a definition and trying to paint me as a hypocrite on top. Very poor showing, Alex. Where is your definition of "disinformation" coming from and why should it be considered over the default one? I am not pushing an interpretation of what Gorski thinks, but only of what he wrote. I took his quote as is and applied the most mainstream interpretation possible to what it says. And what it says is indefensible, as you have hopefully realized now. Anyway, do you agree with my second point that Gorski presents no evidence Weinstein is deliberately spreading false or misleading information in order to deceive the public? Dylath Leen (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You haven't understood. I'm not disputing any "definition", but to repeat: "spreading disinformation" does not necessarily mean "originating disinformation". You are fixated on your own interpretation, claiming to know what people think. Alexbrn (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Not even close. You are disputing most definitions of disinformation, including this one, with a definition you seem to have come up on your own to, badly, fit your narrative. I couldn't care less what Gorski thinks, I am only evaluating what he wrote and I am only assuming he meant what he wrote. It is entirely possible he does not understand or is mistaken about the difference between disinformation and misinformation, but as it stands, his claim, and yours, are baseless and wrong. Dylath Leen (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim is attributed. The fact that Weinstein has spread anti-vaccine misinformation is not really contested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Gorski is a RSMED source, the participants in this conversation are not. While Gorski's use of "disinformation" is perhaps off, Gorski might know something we don't about Weinstein. Weinstein does have a PhD in evolutionary biology. He would presumably know better than to go public on any marginal claim; especially one that could impact peoples' health. So, "disinformation" would appear to fit.

• This discussion is going nowhere. I propose it be closed. Adakiko (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misinformation, disinformation and Bret Weinstein

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per closed discussion above, I assume this is still the appropriate discussion page. There are still two unresolved issues:

• I proposed to change because of their "fears" concerning COVID-19 vaccines to because "[they] have fears" concerning COVID-19 vaccines. The reasoning is that it looks like an actual citation and not scare quotes mocking them. This was not addressed whatsoever. I want to bring it up again.
• Adakiko finally acknowledges how disinformation is problematic, but, confusingly, still somehow justifies keeping it. Being RSMED apparently gives Gorski the power to assert things without evidence. Including a libelous accusation of spreading malicious lies. Are we really that powerless and have to include a claim just because the source is deemed reliable? How about we just hold off on that for a while? Again, just get rid of the the whole section. Leave in that they lost monetization because they recommended ivermectin for COVID-19. Easy, peasy, NPOVeasy.

As a side note, another example of the reliable failure of argument from authority. So, somehow, disinformation fits because Weinstein has a PhD and would presumably know better than to go public on any marginal claim; especially one that could impact peoples' health. That is, of course, a terrible argument, because it can be easily read the other way: Weinstein, thanks to his PhD, does, in fact, know better, and yet still backs this marginal claim impacting peoples' health. Ergo the claim must be sound and what actually fits as a description is information.

Just to be clear, both of the arguments above are equally bad and should not be used as any kind of basis for the content of the article.Dylath Leen (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I notice Gorski returns briefly to Weinstein in a recent blog post.[29] We might want to include something more about the antivaxx quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The first point is fair. As for the second, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources rather than "facts". Even if the reliable sources lie, an encyclopedia should reflect it. Even if Gorski does (lie or misrepresent things), we should include it. Especially when people's health is at stake! Yegourt (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The first point was addressed in the above closed section. Adakiko (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

What are you implying? If the point were addressed, I would not be bringing it up again. It still looks like scare quotes (and clearly not just to me). I understand the literal purpose for the quotes - and I definitely did not need that explained to me -, but if I wanted to give the article a POV slant, that's how I would "quote" them. Do you not see how writing it in that way can give a specific impression? I can try other ways of explaining it, if necessary. Dylath Leen (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to drop the WP:STICK. Alexbrn (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on first-ever “emergency” episode of The Joe Rogan Experience

A discussion is going on at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience to include or exclude a statement on the “first-ever” “emergency” podcast. Input would be appreciated, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Revise Covid 19 section

Propose this section is either removed or changed substantially. It has been written by editors who are clearly biased against Bret and have an agenda against him. Suggest state Bret’s claims, the people who agree with him, and then the opponents / critics. Incidentally using the ‘The Vice’ as a reliable source should not be encouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.108 (talk • contribs)

This would violate our standards for writing about fringe science, weighting viewpoints proportionally, and organizing articles, just for starters. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Add to vaccine hesistancy

Suggestion: Add this article to Category:Vaccine hesitancy, inspired by the likes of Sucharit Bhakdi. Yegourt (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Weinstein has said on record that he is in favor of vaccines, has been vaccinated more times than the average person, and holds them high as technology artefacts that help public health. His hesitancy seems to be in particular with the mRNA covid vaccines that have had received emergency approval with less testing than usual. Unless the category is mRNA vaccine hesitancy, I oppose the label. Forich (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Who's Hayer?

"Weinstein and Hayer moved their subsequent broadcasts to Odysee", isn't that supposed to say Heying? Dylath Leen (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

•  Fixed Alexbrn (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, yes, that was my typo. Slip of the type, I was thinking of Heather Heyer probably.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Biased anti-Bret article

This whole article has been hijacked by several editors whose only objective would appear to be discrediting Bret. There are many unknown facts regarding Covid 19 and as such different scientists have different hypotheses. Bret certainly has credentials in biology.

This whole article is not written from a Neutral Point of View, which violates one of the founding principle policies of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.143.179.108 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have WP:RS saying that Weinstein is right, out with them. If not, go away because you have nothing relevant to say. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the tone of the article could be improved to give a more NPOV. I have made some minor changes in the section on COVID-19 to help address this issue. --Pakbelang (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Your edits did the opposite, because they removed the quotes around "fringe platform", turning a description from the reference (did you check it?) into WikiVoice. And your first edit, replacing the "fringe platform" in quotes with "decentralised", appears to be WP:OR. -- Jibal (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Jibal, yes I did check the Vice article. I take your point about WP:OR for "decentralised" and have added a new source that describes the site objectively. I think the key point here is that Bret moved his videos to Odysee because it does not moderate content. Pakbelang (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The relevance and meaning of "decentralised" is still unclear, and "without moderation" is (per the cited source) untrue: Odysee itself retains the right to delist extremist or troublesome users. Delisting means a user's channel and content remain, but cannot be discovered using search, browsing channels, or other tools; that's moderation, just like having one's YouTube channel demonetized while the videos themselves are still up is moderation. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

" yes I did check the Vice article." -- nevertheless, you apparently didn't realize that "fringe platform" was a quotation. Your intent was to improve the tone of the article, and yet it was better before. The original--though totally bogus--complaint was about "discrediting Bret", but taking "fringe platform" out of quotes moves in the opposite direction. I really don't see the point of these edits. -- Jibal (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the scientific evidence is fascinating, overwhelming, and we can follow it live . I was quite shocked to see this article and how the topic is treated. This is the end of my financial support for Wiki. In another entry, the criticism of a religious cult leader was blocked because evidence came from the CIA! It's just the other way round here, with a much more relevant subject. Not even Youtube censored Bret's clip that was referenced here.Otaku00 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Why are you linking to some self-published/quackery website? Wikipedia is based on reputable, published, peer-reviewed science. Alexbrn (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

e/c You havn't made much sense above, and I note that your link to "ivnmeta" is a scam link according to my internet provider, and links to a jobsearch site. I have ignored your nonsense about evidence. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There was a typo in the URL, I corrected it already. ivmmeta.com gives you all links to the relevant studies incl. peer-reviewed (39 in total currently).Otaku00 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you got any links to acceptable sources though, that meet WP:MEDRS, rather than that self published/quackery stuff noted by Alex above? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Your comment is not remotely relevant to the purpose of this page. If you want to blog about your financials decisions, please do so elsewhere. -- Jibal (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The "Neutral" in NPOV means representing the views in reliable sources fairly and without distortion, not saying an even balance of kind and unkind things. XOR'easter (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A founding principle is to assume good faith, which your comment violates. Beyond that, the purpose of this page is to improve the article, and your comment does nothing to do that. I suggest that if you read WP:POV carefully, you will find that your charge does not hold up. -- Jibal (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

I would like to propose changing the first sentence to: Bret Samuel Weinstein /ˈwaɪnstaɪn/ (born 21 February 1969) is an American podcaster and former academic evolutionary biologist and podcaster. To me, "former academic", sounds unduly dismissive, even if pedantically, semantically, correct in its narrowest definition (although being a 2019-2020 visiting fellow at the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions suggests "former" is premature). Per MOS:OPENPARABIO, the first sentence should state: "One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person held, avoiding subjective or contentious terms" (emphasis added) and "try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject". I recognize that he is not presently employed by a university, and could rightly be called a "former professor" (at Evergreen State College) somewhere in the lead, as several sources do. I would argue that doesn't affect his primary occupation as biologist and academic. Note that his wife is at present still introduced as an evolutionary biologist, and he and his wife have an upcoming book on evolution to be published later this year. While Weinstein is currently in the news (see WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROPORTION) for reasons other than his PhD and 14 years of teaching, he is still commonly referred to as an "evolutionary biologist" or just "biologist" in sources left, right, and center, regardless of the light he's portrayed in:

• Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist who taught at Evergreen for 14 years
• An evolutionary biologist claimed Friday that, should the anti-malarial drug Ivermectin be proven effective against the coronavirus...
• Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, evolutionary biologists and outspoken dissenters...
• lecturer, biologist and evolutionary theorist Bret Weinstein...
• Biologist Bret Weinstein says COVID-19 likely came from a lab.
• Biologist and evolutionary theorist Bret Weinstein, famously associated with the IDW...
• evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein, who has become prominent as a COVID-19 contrarian...
• (Tucker Carlson) repeatedly downplayed the effectiveness of COVID vaccines while touting ivermectin on shows in June and July, inviting evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein to advocate for the drug's usage.

I think the article, and especially the opening sentence, should be written with degree of restraint and robustness, somewhat buffered against ephemeral fluctuations due to employment status, short attention spans, and news-spikes of the day (if his YouTube channel gets shut down tomorrow will he still be a podcaster?). Any objections?--Animalparty! (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Bret Weinstein has 2 highly cited publications from over 15 years ago and very little else. Weinstein was primarily employed as a teacher by Evergreen and did very little research. I don't see how Bret can still be considered a "evolutionary biologist" when he has not published any substantial work on the topic in over a decade. I could accept "academic" rather than "former academic" given the recent visiting appointment, but I should note that the James Madison post had nothing to do with evolutionary biology, and has more to do with his "intellectual dark web" status. Weinstein's podcasting has been the primary source of his income, popularity and notability since he left Evergreen. As can be read in the article, Weinstein has already moved over to the alt-tech platform Odysee after YouTube demonetised him, so I don't see how his status as a podcaster is ephemeral, arguably he is more notable as a podcaster than as an evolutionary biologist. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think whether he is actively publishing, or how-cited his papers are, is a red herring. As I just gave examples of, Weinstein is commonly called an (evolutionary) biologist across the spectrum in reliable sources in recent history. I'm admittedly not familiar with any of his podcasts, but as of September 2019 Jerry Coyne was discussing Weinstein's views on evolutionary theory. How about "evolutionary theorist", which is also often floated (and how he bills himself)? Spot checking the article history, I now notice that before you changed the lead 2 days ago, the introductory sentence appears to have fluctuated only slightly between "evolutionary biologist" and "biologist and evolutionary theorist" (and podcaster) for several years. Thus, my proposal is actually a return to the status quo, and the onus is on you to justify the change. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the sources support the change, and people who have been trained as scientists in various fields don't stop being scientists in those fields just because they haven't been active recently--for instance, we would not refer to a retired physicist who has since become a painter as "a painter and former academic". Jibal (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2021

Bret Samuel Weinstein /ˈwaɪnstaɪn/ (born 21 February 1969) is an American podcaster and academic. He served as a professor of biology at Evergreen State College, but resigned in the aftermath of the 2017 Evergreen State College protests, which brought him to national attention. He is among the people referred to collectively as the "intellectual dark web". 2603:8001:8100:7CA8:4C88:4F5:146F:43E2 (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The inclusion of the covid issue has been well discussed ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

References

COVID-19 Vaccines Disinformation

I'm not sure if there are WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS reasons why this article doesn't mention any of Weinstein's controversial claims or analysis about the COVID-19 pandemic, including Weinstein's prominent advocacy for the unproven lab leak theory, but a recent viral YouTube video from Weinstein's DarkHorse Podcast contains problematic assertions about COVID-19 vaccines that have been rated "False" by PolitiFact, citing "U.S. public health authorities and vaccine experts."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You fail to substantiate your use of the term "problematic". The notion of zoonotic origin has not been proved, so the assertion that a possible lab leak has not been "proven" has no bearing. In addition, PolitiFact first dutifully rated the lab leak hypothesis "pants on fire"--a term that makes it difficult to regard them as a serious source of information--and has since retracted this inane "rating" (in which they cite unnamed "experts"). Please be sure to enlighten us with more info if you manage to find any legitimate sources. Eric ^talk 03:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not refer to the lab leak theory as disinformation, although the great majority of scientists are not yet convinced that there is any reason to believe the current pandemic is the result of a lab leak (presumably covered up by China in a conspiracy to hide that fact from the international community) when new viruses/pandemics are generally caused by zoonotic spillover (other than the striking geographical coincidence of the Wuhan Institute of Virology's location, which is not decisive for the many reasons helpfully laid out by Novem Linguae here). In any case, Weinstein's suggestion that the vaccines are "very dangerous" because they produce a "cytotoxic" spike protein is problematic because it is false and may dissuade his followers from getting vaccinated, thereby prolonging the pandemic.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

He's channeling Malone[1], who links to Salk, even though I don't think that qualifies as WP:MEDRS.

Their argument is that:

1. The there's evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic itself.

2. The vaccines generate spike proteins and there's no evidence that these ones are as cytotoxic too.

3. There's no evidence of the opposite either. Their conclusion is that more care is required and one should assume the vaccine's spike is a good replica of the SARS-CoV-2's spike, being likely equally cytotoxic.

Politifact and Reuters confirm #2, there's no evidence that the vaccine spike proteins are cytotoxic.

Weinstein agrees and remade that point on Rogan[2], that boils down to #3.

Politifact and Reuters though are misrepresenting the actual point. Do they qualify as WP:MEDRS?

Sources:

1. @rwmalonemd (Jun 21, 2021). "The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is cytotoxic. That is a fact. Who says so? Multiple peer reviewed references. The Salk Institute. It is the responsibility of the vaccine developers to demonstrate that their expressed version is not toxic. Show us" (Tweet) – via Twitter.

2. Joe Rogan (Jun 22, 2021). "#1671 - Bret Weinstein & Dr. Pierre Kory" (Podcast). Spotify. Event occurs at 133'19". Retrieved Jul 14, 2021. AntaniSuper (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Just a quick note that PolitiFact is green at WP:RSPSOURCES, so I don't think it deserves such strong comments against it. No further opinion at this time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

There's some deep-serious woo in the air in the environs de Weinstein, right now. But no reliable sources yet commenting on it. Wikipedia needs to wait to see if/when that might happen. Alexbrn (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The assertion ...thereby prolonging the pandemic. is presented as fact. It is merely a belief. In addition, there is no "pandemic" by any established or historically cognizant use of the term. Eric ^talk 23:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

"there is no 'pandemic' ... " Eric, without running any further into WP:FORUM territory, please note that while your sentiments above may reflect what Weinstein is telling his followers, the sources that Wikipedia considers reliable virtually unanimously disagree.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Interesting argument. I do not find it very convincing though. If COVID-19 isn't a pandemic, why are there 798 Wikipedia articles with "COVID-19 pandemic" in the title? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Good question. The quest for an objective answer could be a long one. Peter Doshi of the BMJ has written recently on the topic of defining the term "pandemic": "The elusive definition of pandemic influenza", and investigative reporters from Der Spiegel did so in 2010: "Reconstruction of a Mass Hysteria: The Swine Flu Panic of 2009" (en version of de original). Eric ^talk 13:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why a biased Vice article, Politifact (primarily funded by Facebook and Tiktok), and Reuters (The chairman of the board, Jim Smith, is also on the board of Pfizer, clear conflict of interest). The Vice article cites a single meta-analysis that cherrypicked 10 RCTs, straight up lied about the data in the Niaee study, and completely ignore the meta-analysis by Tess Lawrie, among others. Tiktok is funded by the CCP, who have a clear interest in discrediting Bret since he is a proponent of the Lab Leak Hypothesis. And, as previously explained, Reuters has a clear conflict of interest here too, because the Pfizer vaccine would directly compete with Ivermectin, a drug that is a potential competitor to the Pfizer vaccine. None of these sources that claim Bret is touting misinformation are reliable. Zombychicken (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t understand the need to discredit a former professor of evolutionary biology. There is still a vast ocean of knowledge that we have not yet uncovered regarding the Covid-19 outbreak. It would seem wise to me to let people like Brett share their ideas, while also letting people who disagree with Brett share their ideas. The truth will eventually rise out of the confusion and ambiguity, if we just let conversation and speech work it’s magic. BleedingKansas (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If anyone follows Dark Horse (Bret Weinstein's podcast) He never claims to have the truth. Merely presents the evidence and lay down the proper hypotheses. It is sad that this last edit to his page only accounts for the "misinformation " without any further analysis or evidence.

Raphs555 (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines.

Just leave this out, it is miss information. Check it out for yourself 68.62.193.127 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See past discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Skeptic article

An article about Bret and Heather was published on the 23rd of June in The Skeptic (UK magazine), A UK magazine, entitled You’re probably not Galileo: scientific advance rarely comes from lone, contrarian outsiders. It covers some things not covered in other sources notably:

• Misinformation surrounding water fluoridation
• Weinstein's ideas surrounding evolutionary biology, which are described as having "no impact on the relevant fields" and criticism from both Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

It's one of the most substantial sources written on Weinstein and Heying post-Evergreen, and in particular the contrarian mindset the couple have toward many issues, not just COVID. Hemiauchenia (talk)

An interesting read, giving some substance to their contrariness, which I hadn't realised reached so far into their thinking. Such a pity that a British magazine uses the American spelling of sceptic though!!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It might be useful to supplement or add some new content, but shouldn't be given undue weight, nor taken entirely as fact. It does point out that some of Weinstein's evolutionary speculations have been criticized, although I think "severely" is an unwarranted editorialism, and the claim "no impact on the relevant fields" better left to evolutionary biologists, not psychologists. There's also the nature of the source itself: in a discussion on the reliability of The Skeptic and similar sources, one Wikipedian noted "The skeptical sources will naturally emphasize those views which they can most easily refute--which often means they will emphasise the most nonsensical." I see this in throwaway comments regarding tinfoil hats on cameras (which upon viewing the podcast appeared to be an amusing attempt at solving a problem, with the couple fully aware of the double meaning). The conclusion rhetorically likening Weinstein and his wife to another Andrew Wakefield is undue and encyclopedic, even as an attributed opinion. It would be good to expand on Weinstein's evolutionary theorizing a bit, if possible: Coyne has blogged about Weinstein several times, in various levels of depth.[30][31][32][33] David Sloan Wilson critiques Weinstein's theories here. Perhaps after Weinstein's book is published his views will be more clear and receive more significant coverage. What I would be wary of (from both Wikipedians and any media covering Weinstein) is reading too much into isolated comments extracted from 1-2 hour long live podcasts, a format which invites speculation, rambling, and incomplete or poorly worded thoughts from anybody. Also, care should be made to distinguish views he personally advocates versus those advocated by guests on his podcast. His views regarding ivermectin and mRNA vaccines have been repeated and well-publicized, and fair for inclusion, although WP:RECENTISM should always be kept in mind. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Good observations and interesting links. Saying that evolutionary biologists have criticized Weinstein doesn't say much because they all criticize each other; from David Sloan Wilson, who takes Weinstein's ideas seriously, "That makes Weinstein right compared to Dawkins", and he concludes "I admire him and what he stands for in most other respects" (of course one should not assume anything about how Wilson regards Weinstein's views regarding ivermectin, mRNA vaccines, or anything else.) As for Jerry Coyne, he is extremely opinionated, polemical, and rigid, and I for one don't take his comments to be reliable reflections of the field of evolutionary biology even when I (often) happen to agree with him. -- Jibal (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, whatever he thinks about water fluoridation: it appears it's not just a Weinstein thing, it's a Portland thing. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (2)

"Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines."

I request a change from false statements to disputed statements in the above line.

At present, much of the scientific understanding of COVID-19 treatments and vaccines is evolving rapidly as new data becomes available. Therefore, it would be wiser to restrict the sentence to observing the current reception of his statements as opposed to adjudicating the truth of his statements when the science itself is actively ongoing.

In reference to "treatments" his speaks specifically about ivermectin. The sources below are to demonstrate that the scientific understanding of ivermectin IS evolving constantly, and thus making a true/false claim is dubious; better to simply state the reception of his ideas by qualified peers. Here are recent peer-reviewed studies showing plausible ivermectin use as treatment and/or prophylaxis against covid-19 (and again, I am not making a case that it IS a treatment or prophylaxis, I'm making a case that it's unsettled science and thus the wording of the above sentence is misleading):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31344258/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795896/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924857920304684 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43440-020-00195-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11224-021-01776-0

His claims about vaccines revolve around the concern that safety tests were not extensive enough and unknown long-term effects may be present. This is obviously disputed, but is, likewise, the subject of ongoing science. As an example, one unanticipated potential long-term effect has already been measured: the accumulation of lipids in the ovaries and bone marrow (as above, I'm not making the case this indicates an actual harmful long-term effect, only that it demonstrates his claim is a plausible one, albeit a disputed one). This topic is now under further study: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04748172 This paper talks about improvements to the mRNA platform to prevent lipid accumulation in organs outside the injection site (see Fig 2C) with the goal of: "preventing vaccine particles from triggering organ-specific side effects, for example liver accumulating effect observed for LNP-mRNA formulations shown in this study and also by others." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-021-00634-z

Thanks for considering. Mdzed (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Mdzed, please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The inclusion of the covid issue has been well discussed. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 02:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19

In the Introduction "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines" violates Wikipedia's guidelines (POV). It should be corrected to read "Weinstein has been criticized for making alledgedly false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines".

The COVID-19 section is extremely biased. It looks more like a smear campaign than a neutral encyclopedia entry.Ericlord (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ericlord, the section Bret_Weinstein#COVID-19 makes clear that his statements are verifiably false, which is why the lede sentence mentions it in that manner. In no way does this violate WP:NPOV. ––FormalDude ^talk (please notify me {{U|FormalDude}} on reply) 05:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude, Wikipedia requires its statement to be supported by "reliable sources". When dealing with controversial issues editors "cherry picking" only those sources that support their personal opinions and biases is wrecking the value of Wikipedia as a source of unbiased information. I'm aware of many reliable sources that support Weinstein's contentions. If you are honest you will find them and cite them. I have neither the time nor the patience to enter into detailed discussion with you.Ericlord (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ericlord: The burden is on you to produce these reliable sources that you claim support Weinstein. I am of firm belief none such exist. ––FormalDude ^talk 06:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you amateurs at Wikipedia find reading sources too much like hard work and prefer a video to explain things, there is one available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyy71TOFNg8PortholePete (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

So that's why so many IPs are here complaining ––FormalDude ^talk 05:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

For posterity, the link is a podcast clip where Bret discusses this article, and is probably responsible for the recent uptick in activity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes and that YouTube clip is apparently recycled despite the date. ––FormalDude^(talk) 06:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Odysee "fringe"?

User "Hemiauchenia" reverted my edit removing the term "fringe" to describe the video-sharing platform Odysee. How is this not blatant WP:POV (and an obvious attempt at a smear)? If Odysee is seen by some as "fringe", there needs to be reliable sources and references to back this up (not personal POV). Either way, it does not belong in this (Bret Weinstein) article. If it belongs anywhere, it should be on the main Odysee article, not this one. --Thorwald (talk) 06:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

If you had elementary-grade reading comprehension, you would find in the cited Vice article, the following sentence:

Recently, after receiving "strikes" from Youtube, the couple moved their podcast to the fringe platform Odysee and put their claims about the suppression of science at the center of discussion, alongside speculation about whether powerful institutions want the pandemic to continue

Emphasis mine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dude. No need for ad hominem attacks. You seem to have an agenda here (maybe a personal dislike of the subject at hand?). Vice is not a reliable source (it is a "lifestyle" magazine). Either way, as I wrote before, it does 'not belong in this article. --Thorwald (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

You can't complain about personal attacks and then accuse me of being "biased" and "having an agenda" as if those aren't also personal attacks. Vice is a usable source for this, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_347#Vice_on_Bret_Weinstein. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let us put the ad hominem attacks aside. My principle argument remains: The use of "fringe" in this article is inappropriate and does nothing more than to advance the "smear" and obvious POV. The link to the Odysee article — where the reader can evaluate for themselves as to whether or not Odysee is a "fringe" platform — should be sufficient. --Thorwald (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thorwald, the use of fringe is accurate and we are certainly not going to link to the said fringe article. ––FormalDude^(talk) 07:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not think you understand what I meant by linking to Odysee. This article (aka "Bret Weinstein") already links to the Odysee article (on Wikipedia). And, who are "we"? Wikipedia does not belong to you. I donate regularly to the Wikimedia Foundation (have been for over 16 years). PS: Just for reference, I happen to disagree with Mr Weinstein on his Covid/vaccination claims. However, I shall always be against smear campaigns and POV on Wikipedia. PPS: I had never heard of Odysee prior to reading this article yesterday. --Thorwald (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware Wikipedia does not belong to me; I am not Jimmy Wales (/s). By "we" I am referring to all Wikipedia editors, including you, because I don't think your argument will have any prevalence.

I misunderstood you because you said "link to the Odysee article", not link to the existing Wikipedia page on Odysee's parent company. Thank you for donating regularly to the Wikimedia foundation (I have too, though only once, due to my limited expendable income). I consider myself to by extremely neutral in controversial issues, that's part of why I think this matter is so strictly about the sourcing, which uses the word "fringe". ––FormalDude^(talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I shall leave this issue alone (for the record, I still think this is a POV issue). Either way, thank you for your kind words. All the best, my fellow Wikipedian! --Thorwald (talk) 08:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (3)

change: David Gorski, in Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation".

to: Outspoken skeptic David Gorski, in Science-Based Medicine, described Weinstein as a prominent "COVID-19 contrarian and spreader of disinformation" without providing specific examples of claims made by Weinstein that should be regarded as disinformation. LucasBos (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (4)

change (that's not what the sources say): Weinstein made baseless claims that the drug can prevent or treat COVID-19,

to (more closely follows the sources): Weinstein made baseless allegation that the drug has been subjected to a massive “disinformation campaign” by pharmaceutical companies, LucasBos (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (5)

change: Afterwards, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to the alternative/fringe video sharing platform Odysee.

to (more Neutral point of view): Afterwards, Weinstein and Heying moved their subsequent broadcasts to the alternative video sharing platform Odysee. LucasBos (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

No. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 11:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed evidentiary claim edit WP:IMPARTIAL

Original:

There is no good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19.

Proposed:

The benefit of Ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19 is a controversial topic in some quarters of the medical community, with the controvery spilling over into social media. The WHO and British Medical Journal (BMJ) have published conclusions that the evidence embodied so far in the various clinical studies, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCT) are in the aggregate "very low certainty" or "highly uncertain". Therefore, the WHO concludes that Ivermectin fails to reach the bar of recommendation, but nonetheless warrants further study in formalized registered clinical trials based on the strength of the assertions in the conclusions of the trials held to date.

Proponents of Ivermectin as prophylaxis and treatment, including Bret Weinstein, point to other meta-analyses including one co-authored by Satoshi Omura, as well as the individual trails upon which the meta-analyses are based. Proponents also appeal to Ivermectin's safety record, including the distribution of several hundred million doses by the WHO under their Community-Directed Treatment With Ivermectin (CDTI) program to eliminate river blindness, and argue for application of the weak instantiation of the Precautionary Principle, which holds that lack of scientific evidence does not preclude action if damage would otherwise be serious and irreversible. The interpretion in this case being that the risk of using Ivermectin appears to be extremely low when compared to the risk of death or long-term health consequences due to COVID-19. Proponents also claim a double-standard by which the drug Remdesivir was granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States based on a single randomized controlled trial and despite a WHO trial concluding "little to no impact on survival".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heterodox2021 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Overly long, no need to go into this much detail on a BLP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, given the recently deleted wall of links on this page, we could replace "no good evidence" by "a real lot of no good evidence". --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed: There is good evidence of benefit from ivermectin in preventing or treating COVID-19, e.g. a live metastudy website otaku00

 Not done Wikipedia doesn't base itself on quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There are 39 peer-reviewed studies. The opposite of "quackery". Lancet is not "quackery". Wikipedia does obviously base itself on some misinformed users.Otaku00 (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You're not linking to The Lancet but to a misinformation site.[34] One of ones used formerly to push hydroxychloroquine. Alexbrn (talk) 13:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You obviously do not read the website. Hydroxychloroquine is and was used in several countries as treatment, e.g. South Korea. And why should I link to every article, only to hear that my input is too long? You should be able to find it yourself by simply searching for Lancet: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext Otaku00 (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That is primary research, so unreliable per WP:MEDRS. What we have is correct per Wikipedia's WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

It was you who asked for the Lancet, but I gave you a website that is based on metastudy, so not primary research. One separate metastudy, so "systematic review", exactly what Wiki wants per WP:MEDRS: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34145166/Otaku00 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's the Bryant/Lawrie review, much discussed at Talk:Ivermectin and considered unreliable. All the WP:BESTSOURCES are aligned: there is no good evidence ivermectin has any use for COVID-19, and there is a disinformation campaign to say otherwise, of which Weinstein is part. Alexbrn (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is good evidence. But I see it was "much discussed". But by whom? By unprofessionals who judge professionals? Ridiculous. The person who uses the word "unreliable" there repeatedly is actually you. You seem to be behind all that bias. Any medical credentials on your site? Lawrie et al, American Journal of Therapeutics (peer reviewed): https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Fulltext/2021/08000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.7.aspx Otaku00 (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You are a random person on the internet, and you do not get to decide if it is good evidence, based on naive criteria such as "LANCET!!1!".

Instead, experienced Wikipedia editors who are familiar with the criteria defined by experienced Wikipedia editors, on the basis of what the scientific community considers good evidence, get to decide that. Read WP:RS and WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

So now you violate etiquette by calling me "just a random person" which of course goes for you then, too, right? Anonymous, too? Look, the Alex-guy who was showing off here confirmed on another page that he was vaccined twice and still got Covid. It might be better to call him a biased than experienced editor, esp. as he is no physician, as probably many of you editors aren't. Linking to one set of rules and another doesn't help, because I already showed you that there is secondary source as exactly demanded in one of those sets of Wiki-rules. You violate Wiki-rules by ignoring meta-analysis and secondary sources. But that's not the point. You may thus actually be responsible for deaths. See Dr. Garegnani who treats patients successfully with Ivermectin (Youtube debate) or ask your own docs what they are taking or would take and how often Ivermectin comes up. Your blindness to reality is stunning. Otaku00 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That is just a sorry, ignorant whine. In other news, a Cochrane review is just out.[35] Alexbrn (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Alex. The message one should take from that review? "Overall, the reliable evidence available does not support the use ivermectin for treatment or prevention of COVID‐19" -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Wow, anecdotal evidence! One person did something and then something happened! It does not get more random than people who argue like that.

You fringe proponents also never see that most of your own reasoning can easily be turned against you with as much or more justification. What if you are wrong, Otaku, and you become responsible for deaths because people who listened to you prefer an ineffective drug to an effective vaccine? Your blindness to reality is stunning.

Alex' link, Cochrane Library, is at the top of the source pyramid. Lancet papers, even meta-analyses, are hoi polloi compared to that. But you do not know those things, because your information source, instead of actual high-quality scientific sources, is random Youtube videos by random people, who can impress you with a run-of-the-mill "Dr.", and that is why your judgement is not good enough. Read WP:CIR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. See stats of Delta variant deaths for vaccinated and unvaccinated here. They obiously shocked you so much that you deleted my first answer: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201 And by the way, I am such a fan of vaccines and never said otherwise. One thing does not exclude the other. In some countries people have to wait for vaccines anyway and are sent home because hospitals are full. furthermore, my source was given repeatedly (meta-analysis) and besides that it is doctors and staff I know personally but cannot link to, as with Youtube. Ask yours, it is simple. Lancet is the second most quoted medical journal globally. Your Chochrane Review is not any better than the source that was given to you. It depends e.g. on the German government. In my mind, it should thus be possible to include different approaches, even Cochrane and Lancet have worked together in the past.Otaku00 (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I obviously deleted nothing.

For what I said, it obviously does not matter whether you are a vaccine fan or not. But you obviously don't care about valid reasoning. I will stop explaining onbvious things like simple basic logic to you now. EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Although I am not a native speaker, it should be mentioned that "you" can be understood as plural in English. EOD.Otaku00 (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2021 (6)

Change the following... "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines."

to the following... "Weinstein has been criticized for making disputed heterodox claims about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines."

Reason for change: the current text implies Weinstein is wrong about his statements on Covid-19 in general without providing context to substantiate that generalization. The current form implies an undue bias against Weinstein. It is more accurate to state he has made claims which are "heterodox" in comparison to officially accepted public health direction. To say his claims are false without context is libelous and not in keeping with the standards Wikipedia should maintain as a neutral source of general information. Either substantiate which claims are false in the opening paragraph, or alter the text to reflect his dissenting opinion. StockBondTrader (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)